On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:35:02PM +0100, mike wilson scripsit:
> ---- Graydon <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > It's a Picasa slideshow; nothing but javascript. Weird open source
> > browsers with no plugins do fine.
>
> Not if Javascript is turned off. I'm not too keen on Flash, either....
I'm not keen on Flash, either, but javascript -- at least in weird open
source browsers -- can be constrained to behave.
[snip]
> > > Interesting subject but the pictures are rather (I think the term
> > > is) "boingy" - you can ask Mark both if I've got it right and what
> > > it means. Think cross hairs.
> >
> > O Mark? Might you care to explicate and expound?
> >
> > I will cheerfully confess to an objective of recording field marks
> > with these; that's part of what got me interested in photography.
> > ("what _was_ that?" as a question with a hope of an answer.)
> > Artistic merit is (for me, about bird pictures) generally secondary
> > to being able to tell what it is.
>
> I'm with you on that question/answer thing but there is also a train
> of thought that pictures of wildlife should have some artistic merit.
Well, sure, if they're meant to be presented as art.
I meant to present these as "hah! cryptic mutant giant sparrow
colouration or not, you can tell what it is! that never happens! woot!",
rather than as art.
I think there's a very large swamp involved there; is a street
photographer finding art, or recording existing art, or recording human
things to which people naturally have an emotional response similar to
the emotional response to art?
For myself, I don't think there's much utility to a general case answer.
> One of the differences between a record and a work of art is that the
> subject is not necessarily slap in the centre of the frame in art.
Sure. These, though, are much more in the nature of records in which
any incidental artistic merit is welcome to manifest itself.
> This, apparently, merits the exclamation of "boing!" (or something
> similar) when it happens.
Would you happen to know the derivation of the effect noise? I can
follow the objection to universally centring things, but am having
trouble figuring out why that should go "boing!".
> All of yours are so framed but you say you did it deliberately, so
> that makes them works of art and all is well with the world.
Small bird, that doesn't hold still; centre focus only, focus
confirmation desperately needed using a lens that has a focal plane like
a microtome; fixed focal length, such that making sure parts of the bird
aren't outside the frame is a challenge at the range it happened to be
at. It more or less has to be centred, or at least if I want it to be
in focus at all I more or less have to try to get the subject centred.
So I suppose I did it deliberately when I decided I wanted the picture
in focus if I could get it. :)
-- Graydon, who would about kill for a DA 800/f5.6 mirror lens with
autofocus. Aperture control would be nice, but not necessary.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
