Michel Aristegui

Michel Aristegui

Lives in France Tours, France
Works as a Mathematics Teacher
Joined on Oct 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

Of course. That's why science is above art ...

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

@ kodacolor200
Such as science.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: Many interesting comments here, my ‘two cents’:

Ansel Adams was a photographer, not a guru. I once attended a retrospective and the prints produced in the 1930’s were very different from those produced in the 1970’s. Seems high-contrast was a banker. The f64 group weren’t that interested in high DR – they wanted to emphasise the depiction of reality which was what, in their view, characterised photography.

This was in the ‘modernist era’ – eighty years ago – are we still busy trying to replicate it? Making the same images, aiming to replicate the ‘natural sublime’ that we all now know is irrelevant.

Guys, please, take a look at some other stuff. And Google “Anthropocene” We are well beyond this visual postcard nonsense.
Cheers.

> that we all now know is irrelevant.
> We are well beyond this visual postcard nonsense.

Pontificating, pontificating, pontificating ...
Today anybody can express his opinions thanks to the Internet. And the results are terrifying.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

@ Kodacolor200
> Art is what separates us from animals as it is the base expression
> of our self awareness. The true value in Art is that it is something
> that you cannot quantify by standard measurements.

Things that you can quantify by standard measurements separate us from animals much more than art or even Art.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 07:47 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.

Pour mieux comprendre le pourquoi de cet adage, il faut considérer son symétrique : ce qui est mal compris s’exprime mal, c’est à dire « non clairement », de manière confuse.
Ainsi nombre de discours trop volumineux peu clairs et abscons, ou nombre d’explications confuses et peu compréhensibles révèlent l’incompréhension, la confusion, de celles ou ceux qui précisément les émettent. Et paradoxalement cela induit chez les personnes qui ne les comprennent pas le sentiment que c’est leur propre capacité de compréhension qui est en cause. Plus fort encore, dans cette logique de l’absurde on attribue aux auteurs cette qualité d’intelligence, puisque exprimant et donc (soi-disant) comprenant ce qu’apparemment on n’est pas à même de comprendre.
http://www.gillesguerin.com/philo/raison/adages-cit-diverses/enoncer-comprendre.htm

Needless to say, this trick doesn't fool me.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 04:52 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Vowel quality seems beyond your grasp.
Vowel quantity, alas, tends to disappear in French.
Anyway you made a big mistake comparing 'mot' and 'maux'.
So it's well within my grasp that you know things but that you don't understand them.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Vowel quality seems beyond your grasp.
Vowel quantity, alas, tends to disappear in French.
Anyway you made a big mistake comparing 'mot' and 'maux'.
So it's well within my grasp that you know things but that you don't understand them.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
> Nope. I'm convinced there's a /statistical/ difference
> in the length of the [o] and [ɔ] sounds in French.

Certainly! But 'mot' and maux' are pronounced with [o]. Maybe I should point out that 'mot' is pronounced [mo] and not [mɔt].

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 07:20 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
You're wrong and you (probably) know it!
By the way I studied phonology and phonetics. Maybe I understood them a little better than you thanks to my scientific background. You seem to have studied those domains but apparently only with your memory. In an argumentation you should choose the relevant arguments, not recite a catalog.
However knowlegde of phonetics is not necessary to hear that the 'O' sound of 'boss' as pronounced by most Americans is different from the 'O' of 'bokeh' in the video.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 06:13 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
There's no difference in French between "grand mot" and "grands maux".
Translation:
Il n'y a pas de différence en français entre "grand mot" et "grands maux".

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: It is not an issue with Pentax / Ricoh Imaging.
Problem is the mother ship, and one must read through the accounting language. Ricoh covers up lots of own incompetence here, and I'll explain why.
Ricoh Imaging, though, a totally separate and independent business unit, has been thoroughly reorganised by itself, and they design, develop and market products without *any* external help from Ricoh whatsoever.
Ricoh, however, did not repurpose some of their assets, and THAT they now wish to claim as "loss" in "camera business". Repurposing must be written off as cost for a new production. For Nikkei, all that "stuff" are "cameras". Despite that Ricoh Imaging does not create loss. In short, due to complicated internal accounting, people think who-knows-what. Ricoh is incompetent, and should have taken better care of assets, not under-utilize them.
Ricoh Imaging, though, does not make compact cameras for ages now, those fabs should have been taken care of, but Ricoh didn't do it.

@ Petreluk
I see that you didn't open the dictionary. Here's what you could have found: 'to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct'.
But what worries me is that you look sincere.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: It is not an issue with Pentax / Ricoh Imaging.
Problem is the mother ship, and one must read through the accounting language. Ricoh covers up lots of own incompetence here, and I'll explain why.
Ricoh Imaging, though, a totally separate and independent business unit, has been thoroughly reorganised by itself, and they design, develop and market products without *any* external help from Ricoh whatsoever.
Ricoh, however, did not repurpose some of their assets, and THAT they now wish to claim as "loss" in "camera business". Repurposing must be written off as cost for a new production. For Nikkei, all that "stuff" are "cameras". Despite that Ricoh Imaging does not create loss. In short, due to complicated internal accounting, people think who-knows-what. Ricoh is incompetent, and should have taken better care of assets, not under-utilize them.
Ricoh Imaging, though, does not make compact cameras for ages now, those fabs should have been taken care of, but Ricoh didn't do it.

@ petreluk
Maybe you should look up 'pontificate' in a dictionary.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: It is not an issue with Pentax / Ricoh Imaging.
Problem is the mother ship, and one must read through the accounting language. Ricoh covers up lots of own incompetence here, and I'll explain why.
Ricoh Imaging, though, a totally separate and independent business unit, has been thoroughly reorganised by itself, and they design, develop and market products without *any* external help from Ricoh whatsoever.
Ricoh, however, did not repurpose some of their assets, and THAT they now wish to claim as "loss" in "camera business". Repurposing must be written off as cost for a new production. For Nikkei, all that "stuff" are "cameras". Despite that Ricoh Imaging does not create loss. In short, due to complicated internal accounting, people think who-knows-what. Ricoh is incompetent, and should have taken better care of assets, not under-utilize them.
Ricoh Imaging, though, does not make compact cameras for ages now, those fabs should have been taken care of, but Ricoh didn't do it.

@ Petreluk
> The idea that a grand exception should be made for a tiny camera
> operation mainly of appeal to relatively wealthy folk,
> mostly elderly these days, is in very poor taste, imho.

What's fascinating with the Internet is how many people there pontificate and ridicule themselves while perhaps thinking they are intelligent, though they must have experienced the contrary in their school days.
Maybe I should temper my criticism when I realize that you are not more responsible for being intelligent than for being young.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antishenes
There's no difference in French between "grand mot" and "grands maux". Do you fancy yourself as more competent than me in the French language?
Seriously, the O of 'bokeh' must be somewhere between very open and very closed. In the video I hear it somewhat closed, that's all. The American equivalent sound is difficult to define. But it's definitely not the O of 'boss', that's all. In fact I should say it's not the O of British 'boss', since the O of American 'boss' is still farther from the O of 'bokeh' (as you know it's the A of British 'father').

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Let's say it's a semi-closed O.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@Antisthenes
No, you're wrong, it's a closed O, not the open O of 'boss' or 'bob'.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Baba Ganoush
No, it's certainly not as in 'boss'. It sounds like a short O, but a closed O. So it's the sound of the American O of okay, but short (not the British diphthong, but it's the nearest sound).
The Japanese speaker puts the stress on the first syllable the first times he pronounces the word and later on the second syllable. I don't know the importance of the stress accent in Japanese, but it's natural in English to put the stress on the first syllable of 'bokeh', as the OED says ...

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 10:35 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives for 'bokeh' the same pronunciation as for 'ok', but with the stress on the first syllable.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 05:38 UTC
In reply to:

whakapu: Well that explains why it matters to you, but not why it should matter to me. I want a little bit of challenge, I don't shoot in burst mode, (film-wasting mode), and I don't get paid to always get the shot. I think the day I use subject tracking will be the day I decide I need a new hobby.

@ Uniqumm
Please read again what whakapu said. He said just what he said.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 12:24 UTC
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »