Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    :
    : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    :
    : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    :
    : You betcha!
    :
    : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    :
    : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    :
    : Naughty boy our Ansel.

    Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    : On 2012-08-05 09:57:11 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : > :
    : > : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    : > : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    : > :
    : > : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    : > :
    : > : You betcha!
    : > :
    : > : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    : > : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    : > : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    : > : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    : > : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    : > : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    : > : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    : > :
    : > : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    : > :
    : > : Naughty boy our Ansel.
    : >
    : > Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)
    :
    : Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    : < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >

    One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:36:11 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >wrote:
    >: On 2012-08-05 09:57:11 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >:
    >: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >: > <> wrote:
    >: > :
    >: > : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    >: > : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    >: > :
    >: > : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    >: > :
    >: > : You betcha!
    >: > :
    >: > : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    >: > : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    >: > : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    >: > : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    >: > : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    >: > : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    >: > : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    >: > :
    >: > : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    >: > :
    >: > : Naughty boy our Ansel.
    >: >
    >: > Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)
    >:
    >: Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    >: < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >
    >
    >One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?
    >

    I would consider it to be "Documentary" or "Photo Journalism". While
    individually, some images have a "street" feel, it was an extended
    project.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2012
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:25:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:36:11 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>: On 2012-08-05 09:57:11 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >>>:
    >>>: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>: > <> wrote:
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    >>>: > : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : You betcha!
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    >>>: > : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    >>>: > : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    >>>: > : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    >>>: > : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    >>>: > : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    >>>: > : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    >>>: > :
    >>>: > : Naughty boy our Ansel.
    >>>: >
    >>>: > Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)
    >>>:
    >>>: Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    >>>: < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >
    >>>
    >>>One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?
    >>>

    >>I would consider it to be "Documentary" or "Photo Journalism". While
    >>individually, some images have a "street" feel, it was an extended
    >>project.

    >
    >Moonnrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 is Street!


    This:
    http://randomknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/moonrise-over-hernandez.jpg

    is "street"? Only in your own personal view, Floyd. I can't imagine
    anyone else thinking so.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:49:26 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-06 01:25:35 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >
    >>>> : Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    >>>> : < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >
    >>>>
    >>>> One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?
    >>>>
    >>> I would consider it to be "Documentary" or "Photo Journalism". While
    >>> individually, some images have a "street" feel, it was an extended
    >>> project.

    >>
    >> Moonnrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 is Street!
    >> Manazanar is not.

    >
    >Surely you jest?
    >Moonrise:
    >< http://www.alindergallery.com/moonrise.jpg >
    >
    >...and Manzanar:
    ><
    >http://img.artknowledgenews.com/files2009dic/Ansel-Adams-Pool-in-pleasure-Park.jpg
    >>

    >< http://www.angryasianman.com/images/angry/anseladams_manzanar03.jpg >
    ><
    >http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__-WfRQvFjpM/TO7Y11HfDDI/AAAAAAAAAUY/bg33X8tLadE/s1600/mentalinst.JPG
    >>

    >
    >Why is it you seem to have taken over the duties of Bill Graham in
    >these photo groups?


    The shots that you have presented have a "street" feel to them. The
    second one more than the others. However, when shots like this are
    part of a project, or extended series of photographs taken at a
    location in order to present a profile of that location, the series
    becomes a documentary or photojournalism. They are part of a whole
    rather than a whole in themselves.

    Such a "rule" is not easy to keep in line. A photographer can go to,
    say, NYC and do a series of photographs of subway riders and the
    individual shots can still be "street" even though the whole is a both
    a project and a profile of the subway.

    Whether or not the series is "street" or "documentary" comes down to
    the intent of the photographer. Was he trying to provide a profile of
    the subway as a place and what goes on there, or was he trying to
    present images of people and scenes that he found there? In the
    latter case, if the people and scenes could be on any subway in any
    city, it's "street". If the people and scenes can only be found on
    the NYC subway system, it's documentary.

    It's subject to personal interpretation, but I think that Adams was
    trying to present a profile of the Manzanar camp. The people and
    scenes he photographed could only be found at Manzanar.

    The above are my opinions. You should mentally read an "I think
    that..." in front of most of the above sentences. I do think that my
    opinions are shared by other "street" enthusiasts. This is not a
    situation like the Olympics where a bit of finger or toe over the
    starting line or take-off board disqualifies a contestant. Other
    street enthusiasts would universally laugh off Floyd's claims of
    "Moon" and the truck images as being "street", but other shots could
    "in" for some and "out" for others.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2012
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:05:55 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:25:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:36:11 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>: On 2012-08-05 09:57:11 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >>>>>:
    >>>>>: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>>>: > <> wrote:
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    >>>>>: > : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : You betcha!
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    >>>>>: > : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    >>>>>: > : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    >>>>>: > : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    >>>>>: > : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    >>>>>: > : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    >>>>>: > : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    >>>>>: > :
    >>>>>: > : Naughty boy our Ansel.
    >>>>>: >
    >>>>>: > Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)
    >>>>>:
    >>>>>: Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    >>>>>: < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >
    >>>>>
    >>>>>One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?
    >>>>>
    >>>>I would consider it to be "Documentary" or "Photo Journalism". While
    >>>>individually, some images have a "street" feel, it was an extended
    >>>>project.
    >>>
    >>>Moonnrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 is Street!

    >>
    >>This:
    >>http://randomknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/moonrise-over-hernandez.jpg
    >>
    >>is "street"? Only in your own personal view, Floyd. I can't imagine
    >>anyone else thinking so.

    >
    >It is Street in exactly the same what that everything
    >Joel Meyerowitz shoots is!


    I think I see your problem. You think that because a photographer
    shoots a particular type of photography sometimes, that everything he
    does is of that genre. Meyerowitz is described as a street
    photographer and portrait and landscape photographer. Somehow, you've
    concluded that his landscape photography is street because he also
    does street.

    You've decided that his series on "Preservation of Wilderness in New
    York City Parks" is "street". I would not expect even Meyerowitz to
    agree. When he does street, he does street. When he does landscape,
    he does landscape. When he does portraiture, he does portraiture.

    >Look up what makes Meyerowitz what he is, and then look
    >up how Moonrise was photographed. Live and learn...


    Landscape is landscape no matter who takes it. It doesn't become
    street just because that person also does street.

    You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    all of the elephant must be like.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >>You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >>all of the elephant must be like.

    >
    >Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >What a shame.
    >

    You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    correcting capitalization in posts.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:44:43 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >>correcting capitalization in posts.

    >
    >I understand the meaning of "gratuitous", not to mention
    >"personal". You don't.
    >
    >Oddly, you comment is another gratuitous remark. Another
    >tangent.


    The only thing I can make of this, Floyd, is that you have a total
    lack of understanding what an insult is. You feel that you can call
    other people "stupid", but that should not be considered be an insult,
    a personal insult, or gratuitous.

    It must be that you have some falsely-based opinion of yourself that
    you are somehow above others when, in fact, you routinely demonstrate
    a lack of cognitive reasoning power.

    The fact that you are so often so far detached from reality makes your
    arrogance laughable. You're a joke, Floyd. You were considered to
    be a joke when you participated in the other newsgroup that I read but
    that you have retreated from, and you're a joke here.

    You speak of "tangents" when it is you that brings in completely
    inappropriate references to shore up your bizarre contentions.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    wrote:
    : tony cooper <> wrote:
    : >On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:05:55 -0800, (Floyd L.
    : >Davidson) wrote:
    : >
    : >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    : >>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:25:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
    : >>>Davidson) wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    : >>>>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:36:11 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>>>On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:24:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    : >>>>>>wrote:
    : >>>>>>: On 2012-08-05 09:57:11 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    : >>>>>>:
    : >>>>>>: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:34:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    : >>>>>>: > <> wrote:
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : This question pops up from time to time and the general conclusion seems
    : >>>>>>: > : to be "Yes, and probably very effectively!"
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : But would AA lower himself to cheap parlor tricks in PS?
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : You betcha!
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : At the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA) exhibit "At the water's edge"
    : >>>>>>: > : there is one photo that seemed too pat, too symmetrical. I zoomed in
    : >>>>>>: > : with my feet to look at the way the water splashing seemed to
    : >>>>>>: > : criss-cross... then looking at the patterns of the boulders it was clear
    : >>>>>>: > : that he had taken the same scene twice, maybe an hour apart. And then
    : >>>>>>: > : reversed one of the negatives atop the other to make the print (or
    : >>>>>>: > : exposed the paper with each). There was just a slight vertical offset.
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968
    : >>>>>>: > :
    : >>>>>>: > : Naughty boy our Ansel.
    : >>>>>>: >
    : >>>>>>: > Ansel was an artist, not a photojournalist. ;^)
    : >>>>>>:
    : >>>>>>: Except when it came to his Manzanar project.
    : >>>>>>: < http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/aamsp.html >
    : >>>>>>
    : >>>>>>One might almost call that street photography, wouldn't you say?
    : >>>>>>
    : >>>>>I would consider it to be "Documentary" or "Photo Journalism". While
    : >>>>>individually, some images have a "street" feel, it was an extended
    : >>>>>project.
    : >>>>
    : >>>>Moonnrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 is Street!
    : >>>
    : >>>This:
    : >>>http://randomknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/moonrise-over-hernandez.jpg
    : >>>
    : >>>is "street"? Only in your own personal view, Floyd. I can't imagine
    : >>>anyone else thinking so.
    : >>
    : >>It is Street in exactly the same what that everything
    : >>Joel Meyerowitz shoots is!
    : >
    : >I think I see your problem. You think that because a photographer
    : >shoots a particular type of photography sometimes, that everything he
    : >does is of that genre.
    :
    : Ya know Tony, if I thought that... I would have said
    : that. You can't be so stupid that you didn't notice how
    : I've never said that, can you?
    :
    : Oh, sorry... you can!
    :
    : Let me explain what you just missed. Communications is
    : passing ideas from one to another, and that is done with
    : the use of symbols for difference concepts. Letters,
    : words, pictures... and phrases too. "everything Joel
    : Meyerowitz shoots" is an icon, symbol not necessarily
    : meaning what those individual words impart on their own,
    : but what they mean as a whole.
    :
    : I thought you were well aware of Street Photography as
    : a whole, and would recognize what I was referencing.
    : It's the very style of Meyerowitz! He may take a
    : landscape that cannot be recognized as Street, but the
    : guy can't stay away from Street simply because that is
    : his entire concept of photography!
    :
    : >Meyerowitz is described as a street
    : >photographer and portrait and landscape photographer. Somehow, you've
    : >concluded that his landscape photography is street because he also
    : >does street.
    :
    : Meyerowitz shoots Street. That is his mind set most of
    : the the time. That is what he is known for. Perhaps he
    : has done other styles, but that wasn't the point.
    :
    : If you know how Meyerowitz works (he's done several
    : videos to demonstrate it) you would realize what the
    : difference is between Street as the style of a
    : photograph and as a way to use a camera.
    :
    : The fact is that Meyerowitz's way of taking Street shots
    : is exactly the way the Ansel Adams took Moonrise.
    :
    : >You've decided that his series on "Preservation of Wilderness in New
    : >York City Parks" is "street". I would not expect even Meyerowitz to
    : >agree. When he does street, he does street. When he does landscape,
    : >he does landscape. When he does portraiture, he does portraiture.
    :
    : When you go off on a tangent, there is no holding you back.
    :
    : >>Look up what makes Meyerowitz what he is, and then look
    : >>up how Moonrise was photographed. Live and learn...
    : >
    : >Landscape is landscape no matter who takes it. It doesn't become
    : >street just because that person also does street.
    :
    : If the method is purely Street, the result is purely Street, even
    : if you can't tell the difference!
    :
    : >You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    : >all of the elephant must be like.
    :
    : Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    : What a shame.
    :
    : "but if you can keep paying attention something will
    : reveal itself - just a split second - and then
    : there's a crazy cockeyed picture!"
    : -- Joel Meyerowitz

    I think maybe Floyd has been out in the sun too long. It must be tough when
    you have to go six months between sunsets. We should cut him some slack. (That
    includes you, Tony!)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 8, 2012
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:24:09 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >I think maybe Floyd has been out in the sun too long. It must be tough when
    >you have to go six months between sunsets. We should cut him some slack. (That
    >includes you, Tony!)


    I would imagine there could be several things affecting him from
    frequent white-outs, to dense fog for days at a time, and the
    isolation of a city that is not connected to the rest of the state by
    roads. There would be times you couldn't get out of town if you
    wanted to. And, liquor is not sold in the city.

    There some bright spots in Barrow, though. Residents can look forward
    to watching games like the two-foot high kick and the ear pull.*

    Floyd seems to be inventing his own game regarding photography: the
    leg pull.

    *The ear pull is a traditional Inuit game which tests the competitors'
    ability to endure pain. In the ear pull, two competitors sit facing
    each other, their legs straddled and interlocked. A two-foot-long loop
    of string, similar to a thick, waxed dental floss, is looped behind
    their ears, connecting right ear to right ear, or left to left. The
    competitors then pull upon the opposing ear using their own ear until
    the cord comes free or one player quits from the pain. The game has
    been omitted from some Arctic sports competitions due to safety
    concerns and the squeamishness of spectators; the event can cause
    bleeding and competitors sometimes require stitches.

    [
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 8, 2012
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:51:56 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >I think maybe Floyd has been out in the sun too long. It must be tough
    : >when you have to go six months between sunsets. We should cut him some
    : >slack. (That includes you, Tony!)
    :
    : Yep, here we are with another person who thinks
    : gratuitous insults make a point other than how poor they
    : are at thinking.
    :
    : The sun here, BTW, has been setting every night for
    : days, and it *never* goes 6 months between sunsets.
    : You are probably one of those idjits that thinks we
    : have 6 months of daylight and 6 months of pitch black
    : night...
    :
    : Do you, by any chance, need to breath some air that
    : actually is clean and fresh? You should probably live
    : in a place as nice as I do! Might help you with
    : cognition, eh?

    Perhaps.

    But you think that what I wrote above qualifies as a gratuitous insult? Are
    you serious or simply trying to maintain your credentials as a humorless twit?
    I assure you, sirrah, that had I actually intended to insult you, I would have
    done so rather more effectively than that.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 9, 2012
    #11
  12. On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    > Davidson) wrote:
    >
    >>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >>> all of the elephant must be like.

    >>
    >> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >> What a shame.
    >>

    > You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    > correcting capitalization in posts.


    That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    with nospam's
    correcting capitalization in posts."

    Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    correcting capitalization in posts."

    Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)

    --
    “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    John McWilliams, Aug 17, 2012
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >> Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    >>>
    >>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >>> What a shame.
    >>>

    >> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >> correcting capitalization in posts.

    >
    > That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    > with nospam's
    > correcting capitalization in posts."
    >
    > Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    > correcting capitalization in posts."
    >
    > Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    >
    > --
    > “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    > each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    > ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    >



    OK
    Objections are; or
    Your objection is; ;-)




    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 17, 2012
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>> Davidson) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    >>>>
    >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >>>> What a shame.
    >>>>
    >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >>> correcting capitalization in posts.

    >>
    >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    >> with nospam's
    >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >>
    >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >>
    >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    >>
    >> --
    >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    >>

    >
    >
    >OK
    >Objections are; or
    >Your objection is; ;-)


    But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/16/2012 10:49 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>>> Davidson) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >>>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >>>>> What a shame.
    >>>>>
    >>>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >>>> correcting capitalization in posts.
    >>>
    >>> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    >>> with nospam's
    >>> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >>>
    >>> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    >>> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >>>
    >>> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    >>> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    >>> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> OK
    >> Objections are; or
    >> Your objection is; ;-)

    >
    > But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.
    >


    I only took issue with the posting to which I responded. Not your posting.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 17, 2012
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:49:37 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    : >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    : >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    : >>> Davidson) wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    : >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    : >>>> What a shame.
    : >>>>
    : >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    : >>> correcting capitalization in posts.
    : >>
    : >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    : >> with nospam's
    : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    : >>
    : >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    : >>
    : >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    : >>
    : >> --
    : >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    : >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    : >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    : >>
    : >
    : >
    : >OK
    : >Objections are; or
    : >Your objection is; ;-)
    :
    : But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.

    Afraid not, Tony. The commas around the verbal phrase "objecting to gratuitous
    personal insults" make it appositive, and therefore removable. This leaves
    "You is on par with nospam ...", which is clearly ungrammatical (and possibly
    not even true).

    But John also quibbles with how the sentence would read without the commas. He
    sees "objecting", with its modifiers, as a verbal noun phrase and the subject
    of the verb "is". The rule here is that pronoun modifiers of verbal nouns, at
    least in such cases as this, should be possessive. (I.e., "your objecting",
    just as it would be "your objection".) I'm afraid most grammarians, including
    my 11th-grade English teacher, would agree with John.

    If you want to prolong the agony, the argument you might make is that you
    meant the subject of the sentence to be the verbal noun phrase "you
    objecting", implying a slightly more continuous and less finite action than
    the other interpretation. Note that John let you get away with that
    interpretation in the phrase "nospam correcting capitalization" (vs "nospam's
    correcting capitalization", which would imply that he actually did it) later
    in the sentence.

    Why all this? Well, it's Saturday morning; I'm bored; it's too wet to mow the
    lawn and too early to leave for the juried show at the Griffin Museum of
    Photography; and wasting time on Usenet is a proud tradition to be upheld.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 18, 2012
    #16
  17. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/18/2012 9:23 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:49:37 -0400, tony cooper <>
    > wrote:
    > : On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    > : <> wrote:
    > :
    > : >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > : >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > : >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    > : >>> Davidson) wrote:
    > : >>>
    > : >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    > : >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    > : >>>> What a shame.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    > : >>> correcting capitalization in posts.
    > : >>
    > : >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    > : >> with nospam's
    > : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    > : >>
    > : >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    > : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    > : >>
    > : >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    > : >>
    > : >> --
    > : >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    > : >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    > : >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    > : >>
    > : >
    > : >
    > : >OK
    > : >Objections are; or
    > : >Your objection is; ;-)
    > :
    > : But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.
    >
    > Afraid not, Tony. The commas around the verbal phrase "objecting to gratuitous
    > personal insults" make it appositive, and therefore removable. This leaves
    > "You is on par with nospam ...", which is clearly ungrammatical (and possibly
    > not even true).
    >
    > But John also quibbles with how the sentence would read without the commas. He
    > sees "objecting", with its modifiers, as a verbal noun phrase and the subject
    > of the verb "is". The rule here is that pronoun modifiers of verbal nouns, at
    > least in such cases as this, should be possessive. (I.e., "your objecting",
    > just as it would be "your objection".) I'm afraid most grammarians, including
    > my 11th-grade English teacher, would agree with John.
    >
    > If you want to prolong the agony, the argument you might make is that you
    > meant the subject of the sentence to be the verbal noun phrase "you
    > objecting", implying a slightly more continuous and less finite action than
    > the other interpretation. Note that John let you get away with that
    > interpretation in the phrase "nospam correcting capitalization" (vs "nospam's
    > correcting capitalization", which would imply that he actually did it) later
    > in the sentence.
    >
    > Why all this? Well, it's Saturday morning; I'm bored; it's too wet to mow the
    > lawn and too early to leave for the juried show at the Griffin Museum of
    > Photography; and wasting time on Usenet is a proud tradition to be upheld.
    >


    Hey, I am waiting for my wife to get dressed. I quickly realized that
    when I awoke, I didn't have the time to do any photography. I had
    planned to get up around 5 and be back by 10:30. I awoke on time, but
    couldn't get up. In retrospect that was a mistake.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #17
  18. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:23:15 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:49:37 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    >: <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >: >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >: >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >: >>> Davidson) wrote:
    >: >>>
    >: >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >: >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    >: >>>>
    >: >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >: >>>> What a shame.
    >: >>>>
    >: >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >: >>> correcting capitalization in posts.
    >: >>
    >: >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par
    >: >> with nospam's
    >: >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >: >>
    >: >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    >: >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >: >>
    >: >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    >: >>
    >: >> --
    >: >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    >: >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    >: >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    >: >>
    >: >
    >: >
    >: >OK
    >: >Objections are; or
    >: >Your objection is; ;-)
    >:
    >: But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.
    >
    >Afraid not, Tony. The commas around the verbal phrase "objecting to gratuitous
    >personal insults" make it appositive, and therefore removable. This leaves
    >"You is on par with nospam ...", which is clearly ungrammatical (and possibly
    >not even true).
    >
    >But John also quibbles with how the sentence would read without the commas. He
    >sees "objecting", with its modifiers, as a verbal noun phrase and the subject
    >of the verb "is". The rule here is that pronoun modifiers of verbal nouns, at
    >least in such cases as this, should be possessive. (I.e., "your objecting",
    >just as it would be "your objection".) I'm afraid most grammarians, including
    >my 11th-grade English teacher, would agree with John.
    >
    >If you want to prolong the agony, the argument you might make is that you
    >meant the subject of the sentence to be the verbal noun phrase "you
    >objecting", implying a slightly more continuous and less finite action than
    >the other interpretation. Note that John let you get away with that
    >interpretation in the phrase "nospam correcting capitalization" (vs "nospam's
    >correcting capitalization", which would imply that he actually did it) later
    >in the sentence.
    >
    >Why all this? Well, it's Saturday morning; I'm bored; it's too wet to mow the
    >lawn and too early to leave for the juried show at the Griffin Museum of
    >Photography; and wasting time on Usenet is a proud tradition to be upheld.


    On reflection, I agree with the correction.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #18
  19. On 8/18/12 PDT 9:54 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:23:15 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:49:37 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN
    >> : <> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >> : >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> : >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >> : >>> Davidson) wrote:
    >> : >>>
    >> : >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    >> : >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.
    >> : >>>>
    >> : >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    >> : >>>> What a shame.
    >> : >>>>
    >> : >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    >> : >>> correcting capitalization in posts.
    >> : >>
    >> : >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults ison par
    >> : >> with nospam's
    >> : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >> : >>
    >> : >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam
    >> : >> correcting capitalization in posts."
    >> : >>
    >> : >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :) :) :) :)
    >> : >>
    >> : >> --
    >> : >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
    >> : >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
    >> : >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    >> : >>
    >> : >
    >> : >
    >> : >OK
    >> : >Objections are; or
    >> : >Your objection is; ;-)
    >> :
    >> : But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.
    >>
    >> Afraid not, Tony. The commas around the verbal phrase "objecting to gratuitous
    >> personal insults" make it appositive, and therefore removable. This leaves
    >> "You is on par with nospam ...", which is clearly ungrammatical (and possibly
    >> not even true).
    >>
    >> But John also quibbles with how the sentence would read without the commas. He
    >> sees "objecting", with its modifiers, as a verbal noun phrase and the subject
    >> of the verb "is". The rule here is that pronoun modifiers of verbal nouns, at
    >> least in such cases as this, should be possessive. (I.e., "your objecting",
    >> just as it would be "your objection".) I'm afraid most grammarians, including
    >> my 11th-grade English teacher, would agree with John.
    >>
    >> If you want to prolong the agony, the argument you might make is that you
    >> meant the subject of the sentence to be the verbal noun phrase "you
    >> objecting", implying a slightly more continuous and less finite actionthan
    >> the other interpretation. Note that John let you get away with that
    >> interpretation in the phrase "nospam correcting capitalization" (vs "nospam's
    >> correcting capitalization", which would imply that he actually did it)later
    >> in the sentence.
    >>
    >> Why all this? Well, it's Saturday morning; I'm bored; it's too wet to mow the
    >> lawn and too early to leave for the juried show at the Griffin Museum of
    >> Photography; and wasting time on Usenet is a proud tradition to be upheld.

    >
    > On reflection, I agree with the correction.


    Thanks to both of youse gents!
    :)
    John McWilliams, Sep 6, 2012
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ray

    Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

    ray, Aug 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    231
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 7, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    246
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Aug 7, 2012
  3. Charles E. Hardwidge

    Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

    Charles E. Hardwidge, Aug 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Aug 10, 2012
  4. PeterN

    Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

    PeterN, Aug 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    251
    PeterN
    Aug 11, 2012
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

    Robert Coe, Aug 11, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    471
    tony cooper
    Aug 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page