ahhh, my dahlink…remember the good ole forum days when “an expert” would endlessly expound upon the righteousness of his views because he alone dwells in the upper echelons of the Truly Knowledgeable?
yieah. just spent the past hour cracking up. cuz here we go again.
seriously, dude. admit that you enjoy the attention from flouncing your oh-so-controversial views about. quoting a bunch of statistics is moot when it comes to photography because aesthetics will always, ALWAYS, play into the average viewer’s appreciation of an image. (which, of course, you also conveniently put down the average viewer’s opinion as worthless anyway because they don’t know what went into producing a photograph). “ugly is subjective” is the only actual Verifiable Fact in the entire argument. saying that images processed using zones is guaranteed to be ugly will forever be Your Opinion and your opinion ONLY — it will never be a Fact. suck it up buddy. i like aa’s photographs. i don’t have the first clue how he created them. it can be zoned up the ass and it wouldn’t matter to me. i don’t even know what zoning is so i wouldn’t be able to tell whether it’s been used or not. it doesn’t make his work any less amazing because the point of the photo got across — that american landscape is awesome and majestic and wowing. even discounting the inevitable sheeps of a population, millions of people got that point. therefore, aa’s photography = not lame. if he produced the results using zones, then zones = not lame.
there are so many holes in the guy’s arguments. he’s staring at the black hole of holes and will still insist on wearing blinders. blah blah blah, we’re all tasteless bourgeois for liking aa’s work, yak yak yak, landscape imagery is forever rooted in romanticism. thank god he doesn’t frequent with us non-skilled “photographer” types. one can imagine the verbal bloodshed otherwise.