<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 985 &#8211; The Harsh Truth Of The Camera Eye</title>
	<atom:link href="http://manessinger.com/2009/06/985-harsh-truth-of-camera-eye.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://manessinger.com/2009/06/985-harsh-truth-of-camera-eye.html</link>
	<description>The Daily Photography – One image per day, shot that day</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:04:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Maxim</title>
		<link>http://manessinger.com/2009/06/985-harsh-truth-of-camera-eye.html/comment-page-1#comment-3113</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Maxim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://manessinger.com/?p=1000#comment-3113</guid>
		<description>I read, with great interest, your comment on The Landscapist regarding Mark&#039;s assessment of &quot;Interpretive&quot; photography.  I agree that such arguments are pointless (meaning unwinnable).  That&#039;s why I&#039;m trying very hard these days not to respond to some of his positions.  It&#039;s interesting, though, that during a previous &quot;discussion&quot;, I came close to making the same point about Aaron&#039;s fine work.  If Aaron&#039;s images aren&#039;t interpretive, I don&#039;t know what is.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To use an analogy from American politics, Mark should allow for a much bigger photographic tent.  A tent where all are welcome and all have an equal opportunity to make good images.  Individual styles and techniques are not even secondary issues.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh, and thanks for visiting my site and commenting on the image of my mother.  Your comment was interesting because my mother was one of those people who would instantly stop smiling if she saw a camera pointed in her direction.  I was able to get that image only because I was using a long lens (she didn&#039;t know I was photographing her).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read, with great interest, your comment on The Landscapist regarding Mark&#39;s assessment of &quot;Interpretive&quot; photography.  I agree that such arguments are pointless (meaning unwinnable).  That&#39;s why I&#39;m trying very hard these days not to respond to some of his positions.  It&#39;s interesting, though, that during a previous &quot;discussion&quot;, I came close to making the same point about Aaron&#39;s fine work.  If Aaron&#39;s images aren&#39;t interpretive, I don&#39;t know what is.</p>
<p>To use an analogy from American politics, Mark should allow for a much bigger photographic tent.  A tent where all are welcome and all have an equal opportunity to make good images.  Individual styles and techniques are not even secondary issues.  </p>
<p>Oh, and thanks for visiting my site and commenting on the image of my mother.  Your comment was interesting because my mother was one of those people who would instantly stop smiling if she saw a camera pointed in her direction.  I was able to get that image only because I was using a long lens (she didn&#39;t know I was photographing her).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://manessinger.com/2009/06/985-harsh-truth-of-camera-eye.html/comment-page-1#comment-3112</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://manessinger.com/?p=1000#comment-3112</guid>
		<description>Well, I&#039;m more in for the second shot (woods are always good!), but it&#039;s always amazing what pictures you are able to squeeze from rather mundaine, ordinary settings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hm, maybe I should also start sorting through Teds recommendations. Seems worth the effort...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#39;m more in for the second shot (woods are always good!), but it&#39;s always amazing what pictures you are able to squeeze from rather mundaine, ordinary settings.</p>
<p>Hm, maybe I should also start sorting through Teds recommendations. Seems worth the effort&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
