Michel Aristegui

bobbarber: If he said the things he's alleged to have said, then he shouldn't be a professor.

It's one thing to be a little gruff, and another to use language like bit***s when instructing students, or commenting on people's appearance, etc.

That said, these are just allegations, and also, there isn't much information about the process. Was he counseled at all, or did it go straight to "Gotcha!"

When I taught in high school there was a well-loved teacher, an older man, who was in his last year before retirement. He called a student an a**hole in front of thirty other students. Long story short, they kept him on. Looking back, it was probably the right decision. I think even the student involved came around to support him.

Everybody blames lawyers for our litigious society, but it's all of us. Everybody is trying to make a case, all the time. This kind of language is problematic, but were any solutions other than dismissal tried? There are other approaches out there.

james s. kennedy: In the meantime, we have two narcisstic lunatics with freakish hairdos playing nuclear chicken.

But I love DPR, and it is OK to pause for some distractions. I usually back the woman's side of the story given the history of our species. Given that modern technology mostly ensures in focus well exposed pics, I wish I could develop a more artistic eye. But I think that is something you have to born with. My wife doesn't know an f stop from a doorstop, but she nearly always takes more pleasing photos. My approach is even a bilnd pig sometimes finds an acorn.

Michel Aristegui: All the nonsense that originates in America arrives in France a few decades later. Happily I won't live long enough to see liberty of expression completely disappear in my country.

unbelievable: Honestly I don't understand that 1" and M4/3 mirrorless systems have not been sky-rocketing, because those systems currently form for 99.99% of mankind the optimal form factor: small (body & lenses), lightweight, decent photo quality (much much better than everything below 2/3') at just a small penalty compared to its oversize brothers (slightly reduced dynamic range).
Maybe its the relative high price tag of mirrorless compared to entry dslrs

onlooker: Hipster special — on so many levels.

Owen: Who the heck wants to go back to 36 shots per roll, sending it for processing and dragging out a Kodak slide projector that probably the damn bulb will burn out as soon as you're halfway thru viewing the slides.
I put up with film growing up and will never go back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.