Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Do still photographs make a difference anymore?
Old 02-23-2011   #1
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 644
Do still photographs make a difference anymore?

Do still photographs make a difference anymore, or with the deluge of images from all over the place we're just too overhwlemed by imagery to be able to focus on any substance in the visual media in general, let alone still images?

And if you feel still images make no difference anymore, then what do you foresee as a possible future for still photography as a medium to inform and communicate?


I'm unsure and therefore would really like to know what others think.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #2
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
You tell me...

__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #3
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Some are overwhelmed; some aren't. I suspect it's down to how good your 'filter' is for ignoring sheer volume. I can ignore an awful lot of rubbish, and still be moved by a great picture.

Something else that occurred to me today was that many of our most vivid memories are very like still pictures: that very moment when we first become aware of something. Maybe that is the definition of the decisive moment.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #4
markwatts
Mark Watts
 
markwatts is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 181
video from cellphone to multi thousand dollar professional gear makes a great documentary and news tools, but I think a still image still captures a mood, emotions, beauty, horror...more memorably than any other medium. Such is the worldwide availability of video images that perhaps the photograph has become even more striking an image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #5
Michael Da Re
Registered User
 
Michael Da Re is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 240
I don't think you will find to many members here that will tell you that stills don't matter anymore. I've always figured that if I have to question that what I do is worth doing then maybe I shouldn't be doing it.

Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #6
TaoPhoto
Documentary Photographer
 
TaoPhoto's Avatar
 
TaoPhoto is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 108
It seems that many people are waiting for the end of still photography. Yes, we are deluged with images, given cell phones, compact digital cameras, and the fact that every tourist seems to have a DSLR with a huge zoom hanging on it. Add to that the fact that just about anyone can make and upload a video these days. Still, the fact that everyone can take a picture does not mean that everyone is a photographer. The fact that everyone can pick up a paint brush does not mean that everyone is a painter.

And like painting, though photography came along, painting is still a going art form, with artists and shows and buyers and sellers. Still photography isn't being replaced by anything, it's simply that the field of image creation is growing around it. There is no real evolution in art: every art form that has ever been popular is still with us today, still changing minds and lives.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #7
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 644
A paintings could never be painted at the same speed as a single photograph, so for every painting/drawing no matter how ordinary that have ever been produced, there are billions and billions of still photographs.


I guess, what I'm trying to say is that still images are too many, too ubiquitous, too easily available, and too easily producible for still photography to any longer exert a defining role as it did in the past.

We take photos simply for our own pleasure and the chances of our images making any inroad in the collective memory is very remote, in fact almost impossible.

Last edited by GSNfan : 02-23-2011 at 15:23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #8
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
We take photos simply for our own pleasure and the chances of our images making any inroad in the collective memory is very remote, in fact almost impossible.
I think the collective memory is so "choosy" (for lack of a better word) that very few of anything -- paintings, photos, novels, songs, videos -- make it into the collective memory. The problem is not limited to only still photographs.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #9
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
 
nikon_sam's Avatar
 
nikon_sam is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 4,943
Neil Leifer's photograph of the Ali vs. Liston knockout is a good example of how still shots still matter...The pose in this picture happen for just a fraction of a second and in the film footage you barely see it...Without Mr. Leifer's perfectly timed photo we would have never seen this...Ali v Liston
__________________
Sam
"tongue tied & twisted
just an earthbound misfit...I..."
pf
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #10
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
 
LKeithR's Avatar
 
LKeithR is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Langley, B.C.
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon_sam View Post
Neil Leifer's photograph of the Ali vs. Liston knockout is a good example of how still shots still matter...The pose in this picture happen for just a fraction of a second and in the film footage you barely see it...
The essence of still photography--a captured moment. A video can tell a story; portray a linear event, if you will, but only a still photo can capture that "defining moment". The event that comes to my mind is when JFK was shot. The image of Jackie climbing into the back seat is one I'll never forget. The newsreel of the event tells a story but it's fleeting--the still image is timeless...
__________________
Keith
http://lkeithr.zenfolio.com
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #11
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop's Avatar
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 37
Posts: 1,709
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/we...%20best&st=cse
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2011   #12
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,848
I think there was a time when a photo could have significant impact. But I no longer believe that. We are awash in images. And while folks obviously love to look at images (otherwise, we wouldn't be awash in them), their interest is immediate, for a fraction of a minute, and then it moves on. Images are smoke.

But I don't think it should be important to photographers whether photos really "make a difference" (if they ever really did). While I've made a living with my cameras all my life, I've always been a photographer because I love to make images. It has never been important to me to change the world with those images. YMMV.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2011   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
The make a difference if you allow them too and you're not too jaded.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2011   #14
kehng
Registered User
 
kehng's Avatar
 
kehng is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 170
I was at talk here in London this week, where one of the speakers banged on about how every image has already been made - and that there wasn't much room left in photography. Having had a few days to digest this information, I'd come to the conclusion, that as long as the world continues to change and people continue to change with it, the humble photograph will always have a new image to make.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2011   #15
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
Do still photographs make a difference anymore, or with the deluge of images from all over the place we're just too overhwlemed by imagery to be able to focus on any substance in the visual media in general, let alone still images?

And if you feel still images make no difference anymore, then what do you foresee as a possible future for still photography as a medium to inform and communicate?


I'm unsure and therefore would really like to know what others think.
IMVHO, I don't think that just because one segment has increased, that a different segment "ceases to make a difference". Oral traditions still exist, thousands of years after the invention of writing. Cooking at home still exists, decades after the proliferation of restaurants. Ships are still relevant, even a century after the invention of the airplane. B&W photos are still being made, decades after the introduction of Kodachrome (which is dead! and B&W are still being made). Acoustic guitars are still being made and are still being played decades after the invention of the electric guitar. Classical music is still being played decades after the invention of Rock-and-Roll. Women are still getting pregnant decades after the invention of the contraceptive pill. Talking pictures did not make mimes fall off the face of the Earth, and the arrival of MTV did not make radio stations disappear.

etc etc etc

I think this is a Wall-Streetish: a decrease of 10% in the water tower freaks them out and they start worrying about the end of water as we know it. Or making "only" 8.1 billion dollars versus 7.9 billion dollars spells a catastrophic trend driving the high-strung overpaid ties to cry "why isn't this company making money anymore!?"

No: it's an adjustment. Relevance doesn't disappear automatically because the prominence of the competition.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2011   #16
Soothsayerman
Registered User
 
Soothsayerman is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Age: 56
Posts: 121
The paradox of art, everything has already been done yet creativity still exists and is still relevant.

The other is that there are more images, just less that are worth remembering.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2011   #17
NLewis
Registered User
 
NLewis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 185
Photographs "mattering" has to do with the nature of the media.

Not too long ago, the typical family got a newspaper and some national magazines. A magazine might have maybe a dozen top-grade photos, a newspaper maybe three per week that were noteworthy. That was their sum total of exposure to pro-grade still photos. A few oddballs bought a photo book.

Today, we can surf at photo.net and see a couple hundred pro-grade photos in an hour.

People say "photography is dead" and yet there are more people looking at photos and more people making photos, and more people good at making photos, than ever before. The only thing that is "dead" is the old photography business. I think things will trend a little more toward the art market, where probably there will be more people buying art-quality books and prints than ever before, but also more people selling them, so it will be a bad business for most people.

The other thing that seems to be happening is a skew towards the educational aspect of photography. People will pay $3000+ for a photo tour of Thailand when they won't pay $100 for a print that will be better than anything they shoot in Thailand. So, there you go: art and education.

Last edited by NLewis : 02-24-2011 at 05:44.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #18
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 644
This revolutionary sweep in the middle east is the final nail in the still photography for PJ purposes... Shaky cellphone video image is far more gritty, realistic and believable than any still photos coming from there. I just looked at some of the images on NY website and they're sent by some of the top PJ working right now, but the photos just don't feel right. They're too contrived and gimmicky to convey any sense of whats happening there, in fact they're just plain irrelevant... Still photos seem completely an outdated concept to document what they call a cyber-revolt.

Still photography is going through a tough time and hopefully it finds a direction.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #19
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
That's a very valid question. We're bombarded w/ more imagery than at any time in our short history. And yet, there's a portrait by Max Beckman at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art that will stop you in your tracks when you come around the corner because it's a masterpiece. So great images still move people.

Unfortunately, we're bombarded w/ really crappy images almost by the second. Violence and non existent values are projected into our brains so fast we're barely conscious of it. They work on a sub conscious level, which is where all of us really operate from, and they're powerful and disturbing. The sheer volume of the images, and their sophistication, is numbing us to violence and cruelty. I often think that's their purpose. A war mongering society that has lost it's sense of direction and morals will need a proletariat class that is numbed to violence. Makes it easier to send them off to war to fight for corporations. Believe me, the people that put together this horrid propaganda may be evil, but they're not stupid. The images work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #20
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,628
I agree with Roger. It depends on your filter. Still images move me like nothing else, when done well.

Do we think in movie mode? I feel it is much closer to stills. A moment with a meaning that precipitates thought. 'A man killed in X' ultimately boils down to its essence in a still frame and as such can have enormous impact because there are no other points in time vying for your attention. Still images, to me, therefore come much closer to 'the point' than moving images, which have a before and after. That can be important, but it can also substantially detract from what otherwise might contain a 'decisive moment.'

Whether any of this matters really depends is subject to opinion. I rather think it does and suspect opinions on whether stills matter (in the news/documentary sense) is probably in proportion to your proximity or connection to the issues being covered.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #21
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
This revolutionary sweep in the middle east is the final nail in the still photography for PJ purposes... Shaky cellphone video image is far more gritty, realistic and believable than any still photos coming from there. I just looked at some of the images on NY website and they're sent by some of the top PJ working right now, but the photos just don't feel right. They're too contrived and gimmicky to convey any sense of whats happening there, in fact they're just plain irrelevant... Still photos seem completely an outdated concept to document what they call a cyber-revolt.

Still photography is going through a tough time and hopefully it finds a direction.
But they're 'here today, gone tomorrow'. How much of that mobile phone footage will you remember? Whereas 'Afghan girl' and the more recent Afghan girl with her nose cut off still have the power to slam you in the gut.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #22
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
The folks who organized that revolution were well underway prior to that image. They had trained extensively in Europe and were prepared to continue on regardless of the image.
Tsk, silly me . . I thought everyone knew it was run by space-aliens under their leader Elvis Presley ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #23
gdmcclintock
Registered User
 
gdmcclintock's Avatar
 
gdmcclintock is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 480
Read The Cruel Radiance by Suzie Linfield for an intelligent discussion of these issues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #24
NLewis
Registered User
 
NLewis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
But they're 'here today, gone tomorrow'. How much of that mobile phone footage will you remember? Whereas 'Afghan girl' and the more recent Afghan girl with her nose cut off still have the power to slam you in the gut.

Cheers,

R.
"Afghan girl" is just a pretty girl who happens to be Afghan. National Geographic has been in the very-soft-porn industry since they were showing pictures of bare-breasted jungle natives in the 1930s.

I agree with the post that PJ stills from Egypt are contrived and irrelevant. I don't think this is the stills/video format so much as a present PJ fashion that is reaching a dead end. In any case, PJ stills were for newspapers and magazines, both of which are dying out.


Last edited by NLewis : 02-27-2011 at 07:34.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #25
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLewis View Post
"Afghan girl" is just a pretty girl who happens to be Afghan.
Wasn't that the point? Well, that and her expression? That she's a pretty girl caught up in a nightmare? Some of the best photojournalism is common humanity: there but for fortune go you or I, or our daughters and nieces.

Sure, there may once have been scope for teenage boys to get off on 'bare-breasted jungle natives', but even when I was in my teens, I saw a bit more to the magazine than that. I find it overrated in many ways, but National Geographic as 'soft porn' is not the easiest viewpoint to defend to an adult.

Cheers,

R.

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 02-27-2011 at 07:42.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #26
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
But they're 'here today, gone tomorrow'. How much of that mobile phone footage will you remember? Whereas 'Afghan girl' and the more recent Afghan girl with her nose cut off still have the power to slam you in the gut.

Cheers,

R.
The Afghan Girl was just a great portrait, that is all. The second Afghan girl with the disfigured nose is far more horrifying than compelling. One could photograph any unfortunate victim of an accident or a crime and horrify people with it, this picture was no different -- and the fact that it won a press award says more about the out of touch jury than any substantial work.

Still photography is great for propaganda and pushing simplistic views down upon viewers, something that press has been doing for a long time before the internet... Fortunately the controlled medium of the images are no longer a monopoly of the established news orgs or governments. Visual media has finally become truly democratic and not to forget 'free'. In fact in a few years to charge for still news images would be laughed at.

I find this welcoming actually. I just look forward to a more settled and mature still photography medium.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #27
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
I got a little off target in my first rant. This is what I know about still images vs moving images. It's mostly based on a lot (too much) time in art director meetings, and having put together a lot of advertising focus groups. Marshall McLuhan is required reading on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF8jej3j5vA


Humans are essentially smartish predatory animals. To such a group, which covers most animal species, a moving image is of more importance because it indicates someone or something that will either eat us, or be eaten by us. It's hard wired into us all before we're even out of the womb. It's primary survival. But w/ the increase in still and moving images today, things get filtered way down by our brains. Otherwise we'd be brought to a stand still by too much information. So a still image, if it's a good one, can still be very powerful. After all, what is a video but a rapid succession of still images? Maybe the eye doesn't catch all of the nuances, but the brain does.

Last edited by Steve M. : 02-27-2011 at 07:53.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #28
DaCh
Registered User
 
DaCh's Avatar
 
DaCh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 20
Still images matter all the time that people can be bothered to look at them and they do stimulate our imagination in a way that moving images do not.
Most weddings are now shot on still and movie. Most brides and grooms will tell you after one year that they treasure the stills album far more than the movie, and they never sit and watch the whole movie they just FF through to the funny bits occasionally.
Why do we still have b&w when there is colour? Why do we use film when there is digital? Why do we use pinhole when there are lenses? Etc. etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #29
twopointeight
Registered User
 
twopointeight is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 458
This came up at dinner last week with a couple of photographers and retired professors of photography. It comes down to a generational perspective. If you are old enough to have learned still photography as a separate entity, with all its masters and the values imbued in the still image, then you will alway be able to keep the still photograph as a separate and self-contained medium. But if you are younger the still image happens within the much broader context of new media and the blending of video and stills, then you would have a different relationship to stills and how they are used. The verdict at dinner; very short video peices will replace the still image for all intents and purposes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #30
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
"Short videos will replace still photos for all intents and purposes purposes?"

Ha.

I'm failing to understand the allure of 'short video pieces' other than as an agreed compromise in a discussion so everybody can enjoy their dinner. Makes no sense to me whatsoever that someone would 'look through' some short videos as either entertainment or enlightenment. How does video 'blend' with 'stills' actually? One after the other contitutes a 'blend'?

There's some good movies, beyond that video is pedestrian.

Last edited by Ranchu : 02-27-2011 at 09:43.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #31
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaCh View Post
Still images matter all the time that people can be bothered to look at them and they do stimulate our imagination in a way that moving images do not.
Most weddings are now shot on still and movie. Most brides and grooms will tell you after one year that they treasure the stills album far more than the movie, and they never sit and watch the whole movie they just FF through to the funny bits occasionally.
Why do we still have b&w when there is colour? Why do we use film when there is digital? Why do we use pinhole when there are lenses? Etc. etc.
Sorry but I can't read that as the white text is invisible in the black on white themes
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #32
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
Sorry but I can't read that as the white text is invisible in the black on white themes
In defense of the "colorful texters," it seems that many people compose their message offline in Microsoft Word (for various reasons), then paste it into RFF, which usually buggers up the colour scheme.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #33
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiquark View Post
In defense of the "colorful texters," it seems that many people compose their message offline in Microsoft Word (for various reasons), then paste it into RFF, which usually buggers up the colour scheme.
Yes I realise that, but if it isn't pointed out the posters would never know the implication. I wasn't criticising, but rather informing
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #34
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
I wasn't criticising, but rather informing
Good point, just ignoring it won't make the problem go away!

Although, that's something the software should be able to detect and fix (hint hint, moderators?)
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #35
cliffpov
Registered User
 
cliffpov is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 134
Still photographs do still matter, but only color still photographs. Black and white is SOO outdated.

Sorry, but just my backhanded way of saying of course still photographs still matter.

No doubt the same questions were asked about b/w photography when color photography became commonly available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #36
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,628
What do you mean by B&W is soo outdated?

I think it completely unchanged. Such things come and go like the tide. Sure we are in a heavily 'contemporary' focused period, but that will be a phase just like all others.

lots of people are scared witless off getting off the current bandwagon for fear of being 'marginal' but the irony is that so many people so keen to stay 'up to date' are pumping out a great deal of unoriginal and uninspiring work (IMHO) in the process. Its a tough one, but there is a lot of very cool B&W work and colour work, film and digital. In some cases B&W is still very much the right medium to work in to convey things in a certain way. I don't see that ever changing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffpov View Post
Still photographs do still matter, but only color still photographs. Black and white is SOO outdated.

Sorry, but just my backhanded way of saying of course still photographs still matter.

No doubt the same questions were asked about b/w photography when color photography became commonly available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #37
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
I see a lot of contradictory statements from the people who claim that it matters or it doesn't matter, by arguing that yes, it matters, but it doesn't matter, but it does, but it doesn't because something else does...

I don't think people truly understand the reason. They're just reacting because "something is now that wasn't before but you can still see it and it's important, but it isn't because something else is important, but how can it". Everything everything must fit in a nice tidy box, otherwise confusion ensues.

Which is understandable. And predictable.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #38
cliffpov
Registered User
 
cliffpov is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 134
Sheez Louise.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.