Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 8/10/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I make no claims about my actual knowledge, but I have a Bachelor of Science -- and will stipulate without comment that the abbreviation for same, here in the USA, is B.S. In these parts of the world, a Bachelor of Science is abbreviated B.Sc., and pronounced B-S-C. Sounds so much nicer, eh? vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
frank theriault wrote: On 8/10/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I make no claims about my actual knowledge, but I have a Bachelor of Science -- and will stipulate without comment that the abbreviation for same, here in the USA, is B.S. In these parts of the world, a Bachelor of Science is abbreviated B.Sc., and pronounced B-S-C. Sounds so much nicer, eh? vbg cheers, frank I know, I know ... I like the USA; I've spent more than half my life here, voluntarily, but it *isn't* perfect ... Sigh
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 9/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry, I forgot. We could digress into a Volvo discussion. Has the brand suffered since Ford acquired it? Do white Volvo wagons retain their value better than black sedans? That one in your pic looks like a soft-roader to me. It has quite a high stance. Horrible things! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Cotty wrote: On 8/8/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, from my POV it does dominate the scene (dead-centre and large relative to the other elements of the composition.) I don't think it's gross but since it has nothing to do with the interaction that the picture purportedly is about and is the most dominant element in the picture, that means the picture fails on account of poor composition. If the purpose of the picture was to advertise the shorts, it would work. Anyway could I just point out the historic situation in which Shel AND Godfrey AND I *all* agree on something!!! That's a great argument Eleanour. Just one small problem. You're all wrong :-) The butt is not the most dominant element in the picture, surely. Each of us sees what he/she wants to see. You see a big butt. I see a Volvo. He, he. *I* see a scoop dispenser. (What the h... IS that???) But I believe someone else mentioned that, too... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22 ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard) http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf +47 66 85 51 01 (fax)
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
William said: If you repeat a LIE.. John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:32:37 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb wrote: I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. OK. Let's test that out. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer.Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Now show me a picture! Tom C. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Some might find her butt a distraction, but no one mentioned her rather nice legs VBG I reckon we can milk a bit more Paul :-) Dave (not helping at all) On 8/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Bob is right. But, on the other hand, the very fact that this tiny heiny is a distraction may say something about the way we react to body parts. It seems that if we were not programmed to react in a certain way to a bent-over woman, it wouldn't distract??? If she were facing forward, the composition would apparently be okay??? Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Paul Hah! Easily a third of the people posting here would love it if you could put one of those TV obscurers such as a rectangle of badly out-of-focus mottled gray, over the offending part. Gasp! I don't think so. Based on my reading of the thread, I'd say at most one person might have been offended in the way you describe. Everyone else who objects just thinks it detracts from the picture. I also think it detracts from the picture, which captures a nice moment, but I have no objection in principle to looking at a woman's nether regions. No sir. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Some might find her butt a distraction, but no one mentioned her rather nice legs VBG I reckon we can milk a bit more Paul :-) Dave (not helping at all) On 8/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If she were facing forward snip snip Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Paul Puns intended? Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Nope. It's merely another example of the law of random punsterism. Some might find her butt a distraction, but no one mentioned her rather nice legs VBG I reckon we can milk a bit more Paul :-) Dave (not helping at all) On 8/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If she were facing forward snip snip Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Paul Puns intended? Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Paul Stenquist wrote: Thanks Cotty. And thanks to all who responded to this thread, both negative and positive. I frequently shoot with wide lenses on the street. In fact, the 16-45 is my most common choice, followed closely by the 35/2. I do like to use a long lens from time to time. It is an effective way of catching subjects unaware, and it allows for blurring of the background. I also like to limit the scope of the background in some cases -- another area where the long lens shines. I think the predisposition to short lenses in street photography may be due to the fact that anything longer than a 50 is a hassle on a Leica, and anything longer than a 135 is major trouble. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 AM, Cotty wrote: On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Hi Paul, This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch. My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide- angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling. Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to the same image. Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting. As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring place :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ . -- Daniel J. Matyola Stanley, Powers Matyola 78 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 (908)725-3322 (tel) (908)707-0399 (fax)
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
It's probably just plastic a bag dispenser, so that owners can clean up after there dog. Most of the local parks around here have them. Dave On 8/10/05, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Paul Stenquist wrote: Thanks Cotty. And thanks to all who responded to this thread, both negative and positive. I frequently shoot with wide lenses on the street. In fact, the 16-45 is my most common choice, followed closely by the 35/2. I do like to use a long lens from time to time. It is an effective way of catching subjects unaware, and it allows for blurring of the background. I also like to limit the scope of the background in some cases -- another area where the long lens shines. I think the predisposition to short lenses in street photography may be due to the fact that anything longer than a 50 is a hassle on a Leica, and anything longer than a 135 is major trouble. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 AM, Cotty wrote: On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Hi Paul, This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch. My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide- angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling. Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to the same image. Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting. As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring place :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ . -- Daniel J. Matyola Stanley, Powers Matyola 78 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 (908)725-3322 (tel) (908)707-0399 (fax)
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
A scoop dispenser yields instruments capable of removing dog doo-doo from city streets. I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Paul Stenquist wrote: Thanks Cotty. And thanks to all who responded to this thread, both negative and positive. I frequently shoot with wide lenses on the street. In fact, the 16-45 is my most common choice, followed closely by the 35/2. I do like to use a long lens from time to time. It is an effective way of catching subjects unaware, and it allows for blurring of the background. I also like to limit the scope of the background in some cases -- another area where the long lens shines. I think the predisposition to short lenses in street photography may be due to the fact that anything longer than a 50 is a hassle on a Leica, and anything longer than a 135 is major trouble. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 AM, Cotty wrote: On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Hi Paul, This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch. My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide- angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling. Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to the same image. Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting. As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring place :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ . -- Daniel J. Matyola Stanley, Powers Matyola 78 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 (908)725-3322 (tel) (908)707-0399 (fax)
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Where you put the doggy doo you've just scooped up? On second thought, perhaps it's a supply of scoops for the same purpose? keith
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
The ones around here are small bags you put your hand in use as a mitten of a sort, when the product is firmly in your grip you turn them inside out and tie the top. keithw wrote: Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Where you put the doggy doo you've just scooped up? On second thought, perhaps it's a supply of scoops for the same purpose? keith -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
P. J. Alling wrote: The ones around here are small bags you put your hand in use as a mitten of a sort, when the product is firmly in your grip you turn them inside out and tie the top. Right. And then? keith keithw wrote: Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Where you put the doggy doo you've just scooped up? On second thought, perhaps it's a supply of scoops for the same purpose? keith
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Toss em in the nearest trash receptacle. keithw wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: The ones around here are small bags you put your hand in use as a mitten of a sort, when the product is firmly in your grip you turn them inside out and tie the top. Right. And then? keith keithw wrote: Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I liked the picture, and thought it an interesting slice of life. BTW, what is a Scoop Dispenser? Where you put the doggy doo you've just scooped up? On second thought, perhaps it's a supply of scoops for the same purpose? keith -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 10/8/05, keithw, discombobulated, unleashed: P. J. Alling wrote: The ones around here are small bags you put your hand in use as a mitten of a sort, when the product is firmly in your grip you turn them inside out and tie the top. Right. And then? Stuff em back up the shute they came from. Arf. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 8/9/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's what the F.A. stands for in certain university degrees. ERNR always happy to help Actually, that's a heck of a good answer! (even though you may have been kidding around). In that context, it distinguishes Fine Art from Arts, as in what one studies to get a Bachelor of Arts. Of course, the problem is, in the context of outside of academia, one rarely thinks of history, geography, philosphy and econmics as arts, so how far does it BFA vs. BA get us in the long run? g frank (who has a B.A., but still doesn't know anything about art LOL) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
frank theriault wrote: On 8/9/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's what the F.A. stands for in certain university degrees. ERNR always happy to help Actually, that's a heck of a good answer! (even though you may have been kidding around). Well I was kidding but I also knew it was true. Thanks for considering it a good answer in addition to being true. In that context, it distinguishes Fine Art from Arts, as in what one studies to get a Bachelor of Arts. Of course, the problem is, in the context of outside of academia, one rarely thinks of history, geography, philosphy and econmics as arts, so how far does it BFA vs. BA get us in the long run? g frank (who has a B.A., but still doesn't know anything about art LOL) I make no claims about my actual knowledge, but I have a Bachelor of Science -- and will stipulate without comment that the abbreviation for same, here in the USA, is B.S.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On Aug 8, 2005, at 9:18 PM, William Robb wrote: On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:50 PM, William Robb wrote: Is an apple better than an orange? Would you change your answer if the apple was rotten? No. I'd prefer the orange in any case (keeping in mind that my personal preference for oranges has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of which is objectively better). What if the orange is a Seville? WW Wait, what are we taking about again? -Marco
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
From: Jack Davis Esthetics apply only until displaced by emotions. The decisions then made in framing chance elements, becomes the art. Whatever does that mean? Are the decisions the art or is the art the art? Regards, Gautam
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
Cotty wrote: You see a big butt. I see a Volvo. And a Leicaphile would see the bokeh on the Volvo.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 8/8/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, when you get right down to it, Fine is an adjective and Art is a noun. So is Rubbish. However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. Excuse me can I butt in here? Some of us deal in Fine Rubbish and are proud of it. I'll own up. Any takers? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I've got a couple of beer in the fridge. You could all come over to my place... Love to; it's a bit of a drive from San Jose, however. Do you know the way? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
The Volvo was actually the one thing that I didn't like about this shot, until others focused on the heiny :-). I actually considered photoshopping the Volvo out of there, but I got lazy. Paul On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:48 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: Cotty wrote: You see a big butt. I see a Volvo. And a Leicaphile would see the bokeh on the Volvo.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
frank theriault wrote: However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. It's what the F.A. stands for in certain university degrees. ERNR always happy to help
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
It's what the F.A. stands for in certain university degrees You mean the Pentax FA lenses are not Fine Art lenses! BG Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations frank theriault wrote: However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. It's what the F.A. stands for in certain university degrees. ERNR always happy to help PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: Marco Alpert Frankly, it seems to me that there are some of the unsual assumptions here about what exactly constitutes fine art photography (as a category - quality evaluations aside). Whose idea of fine art? As opposed to what other kind of art? (This kind of bugs me in the same way all those articles and workshops about Mastering the Fine Print used to bug me. Fine Print seemed to be code for like Ansel Adams or John Sexton or Howard Bond or whomever, with the annoying presumption that anything else was therefore less than Fine.) To respond to something Tom C asked in another message, no, I don't believe that the subjectivity of a majority = objectivity of a sort. Is an apple better than an orange? Would you change your answer if the apple was rotten? William Robb There are many 'Fine Art' renditions of rotten apples. Powell
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs hanging on the wall? A: Art Tom C. From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0700 However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
The Volvo was actually the one thing that I didn't like about this shot, until others focused on the heiny :-). I actually considered photoshopping the Volvo out of there, but I got lazy. I like the picture Paul. A nice intimate moment between friends. Sure it could be improved or ruined by: Posing the women properly; Having the shorts changed to something more concealing/revealing depending... If you are going to change it, a reduction of contrast and saturation on the Volvo plus a bit tighter crop of the top and right. my .02 Cdn = .0164 Powell
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
No way to control this, I know, but I suspect it would be revealing if there were some way to control image critiques, wherein any who would care to, would rate or grade an image prior to reading what others think. Suspect there would be much guessing as to how others might rate it. The real problem, of course, would be the association of a name with the rating. Jack --- Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Marco Alpert Frankly, it seems to me that there are some of the unsual assumptions here about what exactly constitutes fine art photography (as a category - quality evaluations aside). Whose idea of fine art? As opposed to what other kind of art? (This kind of bugs me in the same way all those articles and workshops about Mastering the Fine Print used to bug me. Fine Print seemed to be code for like Ansel Adams or John Sexton or Howard Bond or whomever, with the annoying presumption that anything else was therefore less than Fine.) To respond to something Tom C asked in another message, no, I don't believe that the subjectivity of a majority = objectivity of a sort. Is an apple better than an orange? Would you change your answer if the apple was rotten? William Robb There are many 'Fine Art' renditions of rotten apples. Powell Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs floating in the water? Bob Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 9, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs hanging on the wall? A: Art Tom C. From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0700 However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Powell Hargrave wrote: The Volvo was actually the one thing that I didn't like about this shot, until others focused on the heiny :-). I actually considered photoshopping the Volvo out of there, but I got lazy. I like the picture Paul. A nice intimate moment between friends. Sure it could be improved or ruined by: Posing the women properly; Having the shorts changed to something more concealing/revealing depending... Hah! Easily a third of the people posting here would love it if you could put one of those TV obscurers such as a rectangle of badly out-of-focus mottled gray, over the offending part. Gasp! The same folks probably have an Exacto® knife handy to edit any pictures of David they run across, and they burn books by [gay woman who has all those coffeee table picture books of orchids] and [gay man who has the marvelously evocative pictures of unclad men and boys...] Think that's a joke? It isn't meant as such. Who can find unwanted suggestiveness in a set of wrinkled shorts stuffed with someone's behind, who just happens to be a woman? Un-damned-believable! That street shot (oops! did I just say a dirty word?) is about three women, sharing their friend's pregnancy (or is that objectionable too?) in a public place. God forbid there should be a stray papparazzi with a dirty mind around to worry them! (Did I ever tall you about the nut who always came up with a sexually suggestive explanation for all of the Rorschach ink blots the psychiatrist was showing him? When asked why the bias in his explanations, he said, Hey, doc, it was YOU who had the dirty pictures!) Who KNOWs why the woman on the left is smiling. Lots of suppositions here, probably none of them rational. With the pregnant woman sitting down, and her pals sort of hovering around her, how are you going to be close emotionally, touching and showing tenderness without bending over, and getting close physically? I think it's a great picture! A rare sensitive moment between friends. A prude's mind works in mysterious ways... If you are going to change it, a reduction of contrast and saturation on the Volvo plus a bit tighter crop of the top and right. my .02 Cdn = .0164 Powell keith whaley
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect jokes follow... Q: What do you call 5 men with no arms or legs and one woman floating in the water? Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob and Ann Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs at the front door? A: Matt Christian - Original Message - From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:30 PM Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs floating in the water? Bob Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 9, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs hanging on the wall? A: Art Tom C. From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0700 However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
It's ArtSpeak! And a good example, too. http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Artsp.htm http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/FebArtspeak.htm -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Gautam Sarup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jack Davis Esthetics apply only until displaced by emotions. The decisions then made in framing chance elements, becomes the art. Whatever does that mean? Are the decisions the art or is the art the art?
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Children s ChorusMrs. Wilson, Mrs Wilson, Can Billy come out and play Baseball? Mrs. Wilson Children, you know Billy doesn't have any arms or legs. Children s Chorus That's all right Mrs. Wilson, we want him to be second base. Kenneth Waller wrote: Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs floating in the water? Bob Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 9, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs hanging on the wall? A: Art Tom C. From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0700 However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
Hah! Easily a third of the people posting here would love it if you could put one of those TV obscurers such as a rectangle of badly out-of-focus mottled gray, over the offending part. Gasp! I don't think so. Based on my reading of the thread, I'd say at most one person might have been offended in the way you describe. Everyone else who objects just thinks it detracts from the picture. I also think it detracts from the picture, which captures a nice moment, but I have no objection in principle to looking at a woman's nether regions. No sir. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On Aug 9, 2005, at 12:13 PM, Bob W wrote: ... I also think it detracts from the picture, which captures a nice moment, but I have no objection in principle to looking at a woman's nether regions. No sir. I presume this means you have no objections in principle to looking at men's nether regions as well. The truly funny thing is that if it were a big, burly construction worker with beer gut bent over that way to share a sensitive moment with a pregnant woman and her friends, the TCB would instead add a sense of poignancy and humor rather than be a distraction. But the woman's derriere adds nothing, her posture is totally unflattering to her, and it detracts from the moment that was the point of the photograph. So much ado about nothing. It's a crummy pic, that's all. It could have been a pretty good pic, the moment is there, but it didn't capture the moment in a pleasing composition. Godfrey
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
I think Bob is right. But, on the other hand, the very fact that this tiny heiny is a distraction may say something about the way we react to body parts. It seems that if we were not programmed to react in a certain way to a bent-over woman, it wouldn't distract??? If she were facing forward, the composition would apparently be okay??? Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Paul Hah! Easily a third of the people posting here would love it if you could put one of those TV obscurers such as a rectangle of badly out-of-focus mottled gray, over the offending part. Gasp! I don't think so. Based on my reading of the thread, I'd say at most one person might have been offended in the way you describe. Everyone else who objects just thinks it detracts from the picture. I also think it detracts from the picture, which captures a nice moment, but I have no objection in principle to looking at a woman's nether regions. No sir. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... I can't help it... Q: What do you call a man with no arms and no legs water skiing? A: Skip Tom C. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:08:24 -0400 Children s ChorusMrs. Wilson, Mrs Wilson, Can Billy come out and play Baseball? Mrs. Wilson Children, you know Billy doesn't have any arms or legs. Children s Chorus That's all right Mrs. Wilson, we want him to be second base. Kenneth Waller wrote: Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs floating in the water? Bob Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 9, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Warning - Juvenile politically incorrect joke follows... Q: What do you call a man with no arms or legs hanging on the wall? A: Art Tom C. From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0700 However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. That's easy. Fine art is very expensive and usually done by some old dead guy. :) They teach courses on that and most instructors or graduates can't give a concise definition. Powell who's main job is to nail (fine and other) art to the wall. Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep Nanaimo Art Gallery http://nanaimogallery.ca Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com -- When you're worried or in doubt,Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
It seems that if we were not programmed to react in a certain way to a bent-over woman, it wouldn't distract??? If she were facing forward, the composition would apparently be okay??? No, not as far as I'm concerned. It's not the botty, or the fact that it's a woman, it's the compositional element. You could put anything - or nothing - there, and it would detract from the point of the photograph. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 9/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Oh for goodness' sake Paul, you *must* be joking. This is the PDML. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Bob W wrote: It seems that if we were not programmed to react in a certain way to a bent-over woman, it wouldn't distract??? If she were facing forward, the composition would apparently be okay??? No, not as far as I'm concerned. It's not the botty, or the fact that it's a woman, it's the compositional element. You could put anything - or nothing - there, and it would detract from the point of the photograph. I agree with Bob, but I think everyone who objects to the picture *on the basis of poor composition* has already said so, quite clearly, and the people who imagine that all the complaints arise from prudishness or prurient interest will continue to imagine so regardless of all plainly-stated explanations to the contrary. ERNR
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Cotty wrote: On 8/8/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, when you get right down to it, Fine is an adjective and Art is a noun. So is Rubbish. However, don't ask me what Fine Art is (as opposed to any other type of art. Now that I think of it, don't ask me what Art is, as I have no satisfactory, all-encompassing definition. Excuse me can I butt in here? Some of us deal in Fine Rubbish and are proud of it. I'll own up. Any takers? Modesty prevents me from saying my Rubbish is anything other than ordinary. I'll have to let others judge the Fineness of it. Tom Reese
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
Hi Paul Being one of the last to respond, count me to the ones who like the content of your photo a lot despite some understandable shortcomings in the composition. greetings Markus
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Sorry, I forgot. We could digress into a Volvo discussion. Has the brand suffered since Ford acquired it? Do white Volvo wagons retain their value better than black sedans? Paul On Aug 9, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Cotty wrote: On 9/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Anyway, we've probably milked this for all it's worth. Oh for goodness' sake Paul, you *must* be joking. This is the PDML. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Cotty wrote: On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I've got a couple of beer in the fridge. You could all come over to my place... Love to; it's a bit of a drive from San Jose, however. Do you know the way? Seems so -- he got there
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Thanks Cotty. And thanks to all who responded to this thread, both negative and positive. I frequently shoot with wide lenses on the street. In fact, the 16-45 is my most common choice, followed closely by the 35/2. I do like to use a long lens from time to time. It is an effective way of catching subjects unaware, and it allows for blurring of the background. I also like to limit the scope of the background in some cases -- another area where the long lens shines. I think the predisposition to short lenses in street photography may be due to the fact that anything longer than a 50 is a hassle on a Leica, and anything longer than a 135 is major trouble. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:44 AM, Cotty wrote: On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Hi Paul, This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch. My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide- angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling. Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to the same image. Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting. As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring place :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Who can find unwanted suggestiveness in a set of wrinkled shorts stuffed with someone's behind, who just happens to be a woman? Un-damned-believable! Interestingly, none of the people whose posts I read who didn't like the picture found any prurience in the lady in the middle. I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
William Robb wrote: I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. OK. Let's test that out. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Now show me a picture! Tom C.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I don't think it's working... Tom C wrote: William Robb wrote: I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. OK. Let's test that out. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Now show me a picture! Tom C. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Bill is correct. I can't recall anyone who said specifically that they were offended by the woman in the middle. I misinterpreted a comment that included the word offensive. Another may have said that the shot was in some way objectionable,. again without being very specific about the nature of their misgivings. It's no big deal. Some like it, most don't The shooter is ambivalent. Yawn :-). Paul On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:14 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Who can find unwanted suggestiveness in a set of wrinkled shorts stuffed with someone's behind, who just happens to be a woman? Un-damned-believable! Interestingly, none of the people whose posts I read who didn't like the picture found any prurience in the lady in the middle. I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
You have to give it time. On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:39 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I don't think it's working... Tom C wrote: William Robb wrote: I see this as a case of if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow becomes the truth. OK. Let's test that out. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Bill's a great photographer. Now show me a picture! Tom C. -- When you're worried or in doubt,Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations I don't think it's working... Its not working. William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I don't think it's working... Its not working. William Robb Darn! Well I tried... Tom C.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I don't think it's working... Its not working. William Robb Did you pick up a camera yet? That might help. Tom C.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Hi Paul, This might make me a bit unpopular, but I certainly don't hate it. It catches an interesting moment, and although there are some distracting elements like the back end of the car and the plant behind a head, I certainly don't find it offensive or insensitive. (BTW I wouldn't have said that was a look of embarrassment on the woman on the left. I think she's comfortable enough). Yeah, nice catch. My approach to street photography does not involve long lenses. I prefer to use a wider lens and get closer. This doesn't mean I wave a camera in my subject's faces - sometimes I do, and they don't notice, or sometimes I shoot from the hip, composing with a remote eye. I think longer lenses have their place on the street, but I find that I am eyed with greater suspicion when using a longer lens on the street. In fact, with a wide- angle, subjects often don't realise they're in the frame when I'm shooting - can be an advantage. Sorry, rambling. Photography evokes emotion. Some pics make us feel uncomfortable, some don't. My pornography might be your erotic image. My medical studies might be your gruesome crash pics. People react in a multitude of ways to the same image. Look at comedians. There are some extremely popular comics about, but when I have a look to see what all the fuss is about, I wonder how anyone could find such banal chit-chat populated with vulgar profanity the slightest bit amusing. Yet, my sense of humour includes subject matter that I would suspect many people on this list would find revolting. As my wife often reminds me, if we were all the same it would be a boring place :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in the restaurant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been quite amazing... As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not so easily) improved makes me sigh once more... My pixels worth. Boris
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good picture of a nice moment. Why? It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it. She might not be happy seeing it on the web. I'm not sure that's a sufficent reason for not taking the picture, but, as I say, it is a negative factor. I do think some of the adverse comments have been overly harsh. John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:56:54 +0100, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in the restaurant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been quite amazing... As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not so easily) improved makes me sigh once more... My pixels worth. Boris -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
To me, whether or not a subject might have consented to a photo becomes a mute issue once that moment has passed. My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. I never gave it a second thought. What if she were facing the camera and we saw the shape of her breasts? Would that be equally objectionable? I'm not angered by the response that this has provoked, but I am curious. To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more pleasant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:58 AM, John Forbes wrote: In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good picture of a nice moment. Why? It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it. She might not be happy seeing it on the web. I'm not sure that's a sufficent reason for not taking the picture, but, as I say, it is a negative factor. I do think some of the adverse comments have been overly harsh. John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:56:54 +0100, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in the restaurant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been quite amazing... As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not so easily) improved makes me sigh once more... My pixels worth. Boris -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Jack Davis wrote: This image is larger than a physical component of one subject. Naive indignation has no place in interpreting this tender interplay between an expectant mother and her supporting friends. IMO, a different angle was needed to capture the tender interplay ... as this composition just does not work to show that. ERN
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Shell, There..there. pat..pat Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sheesh! Now an opinion gets criticized. IMO the photo sucks on many levels. Sorry my thoughts are so offensive to you. Just add me to your kill file, Jack. Good night ... I'm off to do something more productive than listen to this drivel. Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis This image is larger than a physical component of one subject. Naive indignation has no place in interpreting this tender interplay between an expectant mother and her supporting friends. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
There are several differences. My main objection to your photo is the composition, not so much that you've photographed her from behind, although I don't care much for that aspect in this case, or in most cases. That the woman's butt is dead center and so prominent is, imo, just poor composition. It takes away from an tender moment that might exist by calling way to much attention to itself. Not seeing the center woman's face, as you say, doesn't focus on the joy of the mother. It focuses on her butt. Bringing my photo into the equation is a red herring. A photo should stand or fall on its own merits. As a point of consideration, the woman in my photo knew she was being photographed and gave tacit approval for same. Further, my photo was posted here more to discuss the appropriateness of making such photos. As for enjoying the scene and not taking - and displaying - the photo, well, that's a personal choice, and every photographer has to make his or her own decision to snap the shutter or let one go. You can enjoy the scene, but that personal enjoyment doesn't always equate to a good photograph. As a matter of personal philosophy, I like to pass on a photo every now and then. Don't ask why - it's just something I do which has a basis in some comments I read by a few Magnum photogs, Frank Hurley, Ken Kobre, and others. Just because there's an opportunity to take a photo, doesn't automatically mean a photo should be taken or displayed. Shel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in the restaurant.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an object of prurient interest. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where that was said. You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others. Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said It's not a particularly artful composition... Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more pleasant.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
:-) That's why I never worry about negative comments. Godfrey On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: If too many people like your work, you're not trying hard enough ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Well that's two who apparently like it quite a lot and two who don't like it at all. I'm pleased that it provokes some thought and discussion.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
The word objectionable was used in your original post, and I believe it was repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only its content could be deemed objectionable. I merely wanted to know what was objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous experiences here tell me that some people are very easily offended by any image that even vaguely references the human form or the birthing process. I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an object of prurient interest. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where that was said. You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others. Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said It's not a particularly artful composition... Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more pleasant.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I didn't say that - didn't use the word objectionable. I said it was offensive from my POV of composition. IOW, I found the composition to be poor. That's pretty far from objecting to the prurient interest of the photo or composition. Anyway, even if someone found the photo objectionable, that wouldn't mean that it was objectionable or offensive ~because of~ prurient interest. I agree that some people here are easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the birthing process. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The word objectionable was used in your original post, and I believe it was repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only its content could be deemed objectionable. I merely wanted to know what was objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous experiences here tell me that some people are very easily offended by any image that even vaguely references the human form or the birthing process. I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an object of prurient interest. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where that was said. You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others. Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said It's not a particularly artful composition... Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more pleasant.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: ... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. ... I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. The telephoto perspective doesn't help here at all. It flattens everything, diminishing the use of perspective to bring our eye to the subject of the photograph and confusing the relative importance of all elements. The TCB consumes the central and most important percentage of the flat composition. At first, I thought there must be something funny about it and that the photograph was taken for comedic value rather than for the notion of capturing a sensitive moment between women. Godfrey
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Boy hasn't this started something VBG There are elements of this shot that I really like. The hand on the pregnant woman's belly, the smile of the young lady in blue. The effect is spoiled somewhat by the unfortunate pose of the blonde woman. It almost works, but not quite. Dave On 8/8/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Thanks for the lucid explanation. What confused me were words like offensive and objectionable. On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: ... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. ... I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. The telephoto perspective doesn't help here at all. It flattens everything, diminishing the use of perspective to bring our eye to the subject of the photograph and confusing the relative importance of all elements. The TCB consumes the central and most important percentage of the flat composition. At first, I thought there must be something funny about it and that the photograph was taken for comedic value rather than for the notion of capturing a sensitive moment between women. Godfrey
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Thanks for the comment, Cotty. Your experience matches what I felt when I first reviewed the shots on the card. Apparently, we all have different ways of looking at things. Interesting. Paul On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Specifically, I find this an awkward shot -- not really saying anything except that one should be aware of one's surroundings. It used to be, not that long ago, that a lady would bend at the knees to avoid sticking her back-side up in the air as we see. And though times have change, feminine sensibilities have not changes quick so much. She would still be embarrassed should she see the image online. My 2c, Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
That's a gross oversimplification of what it means to go out on the street and make photographs. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
[Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't get off to snapping people unaware. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
You're right. Voyeurism implies sexual deviancy and content. While some voyeuristic acts might involve street photography, all street photography is certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many words, voyeur has come to mean more than what it once did. It's now frequenly used to describe anyone who enjoys watching the activity of others, even completely non-sexual situations. But that's a distortion of the word's original meaning, and it certainly retains negative connotations. Only a true voyeur, with a perverted sense of what is erotic, could possibly find any sexual content in this photograph. To the normal, it is merely a shot of three women. Paul [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't get off to snapping people unaware. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Cotty wrote: I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. I'm sure it was ... To my eye, it has about the same effect as if you had stuck a big balloon or an inkspot in the center of the picture ... It takes my attention away from the other elements and I'm always trying to look around it, rather than seeing the point of the photograph. Godfrey
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voyeur I was thinking more along the line of the second definition, though perhaps still in error in my use of the term. The idea I had in mind was to catch actions taht were noteworthy. Perhaps not sensational, but notable. Correction accepted. Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations I agree that some people here are easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the birthing process. Soe people here are even more offended when you don't like one of their pictures. WW
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. What an odd sentence. Are you SURE you are British? William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations every photographer has to make his or her own decision to snap the shutter or let one go. This is the digital dilemma for me. Do I trip the shutter, knowing the picture will be crap, but not caring, since there is nothing to be gained or lost with the decision, or not take the picture because I know it will be crap. I am finding that most people now will just take the picture, they already have it in their sights, so they may as well. William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. On 8/8/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: What an odd sentence. Are you SURE you are British? LOL Well, it wasn't the best butt in the world - - and it *was* clothed. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Never would have guessed there would be such preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially this semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact that we all know what is under there? snicker The wearer's position at this moment, while incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to many. Too bad. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. Voyeurism implies sexual deviancy and content. While some voyeuristic acts might involve street photography, all street photography is certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many words, voyeur has come to mean more than what it once did. It's now frequenly used to describe anyone who enjoys watching the activity of others, even completely non-sexual situations. But that's a distortion of the word's original meaning, and it certainly retains negative connotations. Only a true voyeur, with a perverted sense of what is erotic, could possibly find any sexual content in this photograph. To the normal, it is merely a shot of three women. Paul [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't get off to snapping people unaware. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
When I first started shooting digital, I tripped the shutter more than I would have with film. But I got over that. I took a walkaround yesterday with the intention of taking some photos and recorded only one image in over an hour. I find that I shoot about the same way as I did with film. Poorly perhaps, but the same g. Paul - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations every photographer has to make his or her own decision to snap the shutter or let one go. This is the digital dilemma for me. Do I trip the shutter, knowing the picture will be crap, but not caring, since there is nothing to be gained or lost with the decision, or not take the picture because I know it will be crap. I am finding that most people now will just take the picture, they already have it in their sights, so they may as well. William Robb
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: every photographer has to make his or her own decision to snap the shutter or let one go. This is the digital dilemma for me. Do I trip the shutter, knowing the picture will be crap, but not caring, since there is nothing to be gained or lost with the decision, or not take the picture because I know it will be crap. I am finding that most people now will just take the picture, they already have it in their sights, so they may as well. When I first started shooting digital, I tripped the shutter more than I would have with film. But I got over that. I took a walkaround yesterday with the intention of taking some photos and recorded only one image in over an hour. I find that I shoot about the same way as I did with film. Poorly perhaps, but the same g. That's my experience too, Paul, although it is possible to continue to shoot thoughtfully yet be more opportunistic due to the low cost of capturing more exposures. The difference between photographic discipline and just pressing the button a lot comes down to how much thought and seeing you put into making exposures. Godfrey
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
This is WHY there are things like consent forms, etc. :) Tom C. From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Never would have guessed there would be such preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially this semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact that we all know what is under there? snicker The wearer's position at this moment, while incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to many. Too bad. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. Voyeurism implies sexual deviancy and content. While some voyeuristic acts might involve street photography, all street photography is certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many words, voyeur has come to mean more than what it once did. It's now frequenly used to describe anyone who enjoys watching the activity of others, even completely non-sexual situations. But that's a distortion of the word's original meaning, and it certainly retains negative connotations. Only a true voyeur, with a perverted sense of what is erotic, could possibly find any sexual content in this photograph. To the normal, it is merely a shot of three women. Paul [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't get off to snapping people unaware. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
My sentiments as well except that I looked at her legs before noticing the derriere. Jim Cotty wrote: How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Oh... then you haven't been to Idaho. :) Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:55:20 -0700 I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an object of prurient interest. Shel
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I saw a nice butt, rear end, derriere today at Costco. It was attached to a shapely pair of legs and a slim waist with other delectable kibbles-n-bits. I wish that I had my isDS with me so that we could discuss whether or not the center of my attention distracted the viewer from the Cheerios and Wheaties. :-) Jim Paul Stenquist wrote: To me, whether or not a subject might have consented to a photo becomes a mute issue once that moment has passed. My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. I never gave it a second thought. What if she were facing the camera and we saw the shape of her breasts? Would that be equally objectionable? I'm not angered by the response that this has provoked, but I am curious. To me, a fully clothed backside is not an object of prurient interest. And if it has nice form, then it' makes the picture that much more pleasant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:58 AM, John Forbes wrote: In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good picture of a nice moment. Why? It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it. She might not be happy seeing it on the web. I'm not sure that's a sufficent reason for not taking the picture, but, as I say, it is a negative factor. I do think some of the adverse comments have been overly harsh. John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:56:54 +0100, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated, the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in general. Only the business of the background detracts as far as I'm concerned. I also like the fact that not seeing the center woman's face focuses us on the joy of the mother and the apparent embarrassment of the other woman. An emotion which is obviously mirrored on the list. People tap dance around what they find objectionable here? Pregnancy? The flip side of a human being? Shel noted that this is a moment I should have enjoyed without shooting. If it's a moment to be enjoyed, why is it objectionable to share it. Certainly this photo is nowhere near as invasive, or, in my opinion, objectionable, as Shel's famous shot of the obese woman in the restaurant. Paul On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul, I realize I wasn't there at the time of you clicking the shutter... Still, I think the point of view you chose is wrong. If possible, such a view is probably better recorded somewhere from behind the person on the left... I think that in this case, the most priceless expression is that of a woman whose rear we're seeing... Coupled with the facial expression of expecting mother could've been quite amazing... As it is, I should sigh silently and join Shel and others... This one I dislike and furthermore, seeing that it could've been easily (or not so easily) improved makes me sigh once more... My pixels worth. Boris -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Jack Davis Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:14:30 -0700 Never would have guessed there would be such preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially this semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact that we all know what is under there? snicker The wearer's position at this moment, while incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to many. Too bad. Jack It surprises me that anyone would either expect or even simply anticipate no reaction to the center of the photograph. Instead we argue that the distraction, for whatever reason, shouldn't be a distraction. It's a clear piece of duplicity that we act like it's not there. My argument was one of taste rather than the morality of it. Yes, voyeurism does apply to some degree. Bum, smirk, baby, all. Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Okay, Collin, it's a really hugh deal. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:14:30 -0700 Never would have guessed there would be such preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially this semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact that we all know what is under there? snicker The wearer's position at this moment, while incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to many. Too bad. Jack It surprises me that anyone would either expect or even simply anticipate no reaction to the center of the photograph. Instead we argue that the distraction, for whatever reason, shouldn't be a distraction. It's a clear piece of duplicity that we act like it's not there. My argument was one of taste rather than the morality of it. Yes, voyeurism does apply to some degree. Bum, smirk, baby, all. Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
there's a big difference between voyeurism and people-watching. So-called street photography is about people-watching. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 August 2005 17:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about -- catching people unaware. Specifically, I find this an awkward shot -- not really saying anything except that one should be aware of one's surroundings. It used to be, not that long ago, that a lady would bend at the knees to avoid sticking her back-side up in the air as we see. And though times have change, feminine sensibilities have not changes quick so much. She would still be embarrassed should she see the image online. My 2c, Collin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I don't like it either. It's a good photograph from the point of view of exposure and sharpness, but the composition is poor and unflattering to the subjects. Godfrey Not in the least. It is what it is. Three ladies out and talking about the coming event, most probably. I never even gave the central lady's butt much attention until everyone kept pointing how it dominated the scene, and was gross, and on and on. B.S. keith whaley
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Cotty wrote: On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to capture. How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question was purely incidental. Thank you, Cotty. That adds rationality to the comments I made, and I agree totally. Cheers, Cotty keith
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Do you mean me, personally, or the generic you? Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb From: Shel Belinkoff I agree that some people here are easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the Soe people here are even more offended when you don't like one of their pictures. WW
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
Somebody earlier questioned whether judgement of a photograph to be good, bad, or indifferent was totally subjective. In my opinion, the answer has always been yes. I, me, myself, don't appreciate or enjoy street photography in general and find the genre to be little more than snapshots. It is a rare 'street photograph' that moves me. Often, from what I can see, the photographer does little more than bring the viewfinder to the eye and press the shutter release. It's mostly pictures of mundane subjects that could have been taken on any 'street corner', any where, by anyone. The most intriguing part to me, is that they are a frozen moment in time, like all photos. That being said, there are some I have seen that I liked. I find Shel's dislike of the photo somewhat humorous, even though I share his opinion regarding the composition. I appreciate that, had the photographer been aware of this scene earlier, and been in a different position, undetected, at exactly the right moment, the results may have been more aesthetic No offense intended to anyone by this post... just my $.02. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:02:32 -0400 On 8/7/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA 50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate crop to frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3613307size=lg Paul A lovely moment. Very intimate; what street photography should be about. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I assume Robb meant the generic you, although the subject of the comment was obviously me. However, I'd like to point out that I was not and am not in the least offended by any comment and don't give a hoot if some don't like the photo. As I stated previously, I'm not all that fond of it myself (although for reasons that haven't been mentioned). I merely found the photo interesting and wondered how the list might react. Following the initial reactions, both very positive and very negative, I became curious in regard to the tone of some comments, which included words like 'objectionable and offensive -- terms that are not usually used in making aesthetic judgements. I think that the turn this discussion took clarified any confusion in that regard. Paul Do you mean me, personally, or the generic you? Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb From: Shel Belinkoff I agree that some people here are easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the Soe people here are even more offended when you don't like one of their pictures. WW
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
-Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somebody earlier questioned whether judgement of a photograph to be good, bad, or indifferent was totally subjective. In my opinion, the answer has always been yes. I, me, myself, don't appreciate or enjoy street photography in general and find the genre to be little more than snapshots. It is a rare 'street photograph' that moves me. Often, from what I can see, the photographer does little more than bring the viewfinder to the eye and press the shutter release. It's mostly pictures of mundane subjects that could have been taken on any 'street corner', any where, by anyone. The most intriguing part to me, is that they are a frozen moment in time, like all photos. That being said, there are some I have seen that I liked. Most street photography is rubbish. But then, so is most photography, full stop. And so are most watercolours, sketches, guitar songs, drum solos, dances and pots. Most amateur art is rubbish. Street photography is no different from everything else. So when we say 'Gee, Bob, great photo', what we mostly mean is 'Gee, Bob, great photo for you. Pile of crap for HCB'. What really matters is the miniscule amount that is not rubbish. But I don't think it's completely subjective. There is widespread agreement within the photographic world about the central canon of greats, and this is not simply because the photo world is a self-perpetuating clique. There's more to it than that, although quite what it is, I don't completely know. Most people who spend time and effort looking at photographs agree, by and large, about which photographers, and which of their photographs, are really great. So to the extent that this agreement exists, there must be something objective about the quality of photography (and works in other media). -- Cheers, Bob
RE: PESO: Great Expectations
Bob W. wrote: But I don't think it's completely subjective. There is widespread agreement within the photographic world about the central canon of greats, and this is not simply because the photo world is a self-perpetuating clique. There's more to it than that, although quite what it is, I don't completely know. Most people who spend time and effort looking at photographs agree, by and large, about which photographers, and which of their photographs, are really great. So to the extent that this agreement exists, there must be something objective about the quality of photography (and works in other media). I'll bow to your statement above. Maybe it's related to the collective subjective perceptions of the majority? Does the subjectivity of a majority = objectivity of a sort? Of course most of us never will be published or become noticed enough to reach any heights of notoriety. That's not necessarially because we lack the skill or the vision. Sometimes it may be that some of the 'greats' were simply in the right place at the right time or were early in their niche, and doors were subsequently opened that afforded them the opportunity to practice while being noticed. Tom C.
Re: PESO: Great Expectations
keithw wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I don't like it either. It's a good photograph from the point of view of exposure and sharpness, but the composition is poor and unflattering to the subjects. Godfrey Not in the least. It is what it is. Three ladies out and talking about the coming event, most probably. I never even gave the central lady's butt much attention until everyone kept pointing how it dominated the scene, and was gross, and on and on. B.S. Well, from my POV it does dominate the scene (dead-centre and large relative to the other elements of the composition.) I don't think it's gross but since it has nothing to do with the interaction that the picture purportedly is about and is the most dominant element in the picture, that means the picture fails on account of poor composition. If the purpose of the picture was to advertise the shorts, it would work. Anyway could I just point out the historic situation in which Shel AND Godfrey AND I *all* agree on something!!! ERNR
