Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on April 28, 2016, 12:11:16 am
-
I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".
The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..
If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.
-
Well, had you actually subscribed to read the story you would have found that the photographer was the model. Michele Sons won the trip to Antarctica...one of her "things" is to dress up and shoot self portraits in wild places. So your concern for her "safety" is nice but unneeded...posting on the forums without reading the entire article is pretty infantile and prone to stepping on one's member...just sayin'
-
Well, had you actually subscribed to read the story you would have found that the photographer was the model. Michele Sons won the trip to Antarctica...one of her "things" is to dress up and shoot self portraits in wild places. So your concern for her "safety" is nice but unneeded...posting on the forums without reading the entire article is pretty infantile and prone to stepping on one's member...just sayin'
Do you mean she placed her camera on a tripod some distance away, then pressed the remote control button in her hand, whilst posing?
Whatever, the image is incongruous in the sense that a woman dressed as she is, in that environment, creates an artificial impression and is a bit ridiculous.
I'm commenting purely on the image. That I'm deprived of viewing the text is of secondary importance.
-
Oops! I didn't notice there was already a thread started by John Camp. Sorry for the duplication. My point still stands, though.
-
Not only it looks artificial, but posing in a low-cut dress with exposed shoulders in that cold place could be also a health hazard. It may even void the health insurance.
A seal fur coat would be more appropriate.
-
I am scratching my head wondering why this image was commented on? Unless she was forced to pose there what is the problem? Health and safety issues? If not why worry?
-
I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".
The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..
If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.
What on earth are you trying to say?
-
What on earth are you trying to say?
Perhaps I'm saying this is 'just a symbolism to adorn and enrich' as well as 'create an artificial sense of profundity'. ;D
-
"Ever since I started my formal education in photography, I have had a tremendous respect for women photographers. Men dominated the field in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s but that has changed drastically since then. With the advent of the digital camera, photography became a lot easier for anyone with a desire to take good pictures."
This is a most chauvinistic statement. This honors women? I am insulted and will stop there.
This site is ran by a bunch of old men; very old men.
No more funds from me.
-
It would be so refreshing to see more women contributors here.
Perhaps common sense would then prevail?
Of course! Please rise up ladies and defend yourselves. ;)
-
Ray I think you are skating on very thin ice? If memory serves me right this is the third or fourth time that you have disparaged Kevin? You state that on principle you won't subscribe to the main site but you feel free to attack one of the contributors who happens to be a co-owner. What is your agenda? :(
-
Ray, everyone has an opinion and you usually have them and have since I first started at Luminous-Landscape. I am not sure what grounds of principle you are referring to? We are adding new subscribers everyday and that fee give you access to the whole site and all the videos. Frankly, I don't know how you can comment on an image or an article without being a subscriber. I have business to run. Expenses and such to be paid and we made a business decision months ago to make the site a membership site. A dollar a month, is that really going to hurt? When you are a subscriber please feel free to comment as you wish.
As far as the image goes or any images you are entitled to your opinion but if you read the story about this particular women and what she is trying to do (links in the article) you'd understand.
-
Ray I think you are skating on very thin ice? If memory serves me right this is the third or fourth time that you have disparaged Kevin? You state that on principle you won't subscribe to the main site but you feel free to attack one of the contributors who happens to be a co-owner. What is your agenda? :(
I'm amazed, Stamper, that you seem unable to distinguish between a critique of an image and an ad hominem attack. :(
-
As far as the image goes or any images you are entitled to your opinion but if you read the story about this particular women and what she is trying to do (links in the article) you'd understand.
Kevin,
I believe images should stand on their own. I don't subscribe to the site because I don't make any money from my photography, and am not really interested in making money, which is a separate activity from my enjoyment of taking and processing photos. I pay a monthly fee for the use of Photoshop and that's enough. Sorry! However, I might change my mind if the spirit moves me. ;)
-
I'm amazed, Stamper, that you seem unable to distinguish between a critique of an image and an ad hominem attack. :(
Your idea of a critique is certainly different from mine.
-
Kevin,
I believe images should stand on their own. I don't subscribe to the site because I don't make any money from my photography, and am not really interested in making money, which is a separate activity from my enjoyment of taking and processing photos. I pay a monthly fee for the use of Photoshop and that's enough. Sorry! However, I might change my mind if the spirit moves me. ;)
A strange explanation. Most members probably don't make money from photography but are willing to pay the subscription
-
.... No more funds from me.
It would be great if that would be followed by no more (silly) comments ;)
-
I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".
The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..
If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.
Ray - I can hardly believe what you are saying. I too have not read the article yet, so I am commenting purely on the image, like you. What is the problem - why mention the shoes she is possibly wearing? If she has any sense I expect she has a pair of boots on - or climbing shoes. So what? The fact the picture does not make sense to you is fine. Have you never seen photographers juxtaposing unusual subjects before. And in any case, many very famous pictures would make no sense without an accompanying background story. As it stands - I don't rate the picture as being anything special - but then I have yet to read the text. If it is one picture in a series then it is important to see the complete set to understand it.
Jim
-
Ray - I can hardly believe what you are saying. I too have not read the article yet, so I am commenting purely on the image, like you. What is the problem - why mention the shoes she is possibly wearing? If she has any sense I expect she has a pair of boots on - or climbing shoes. So what? The fact the picture does not make sense to you is fine. Have you never seen photographers juxtaposing unusual subjects before. And in any case, many very famous pictures would make no sense without an accompanying background story. As it stands - I don't rate the picture as being anything special - but then I have yet to read the text. If it is one picture in a series then it is important to see the complete set to understand it.
Jim
Jim,
My honest critique is probably based upon the fact that I'm such a protective and compassionate person as regards women, and feel that this lady is exposing herself to possible accidents in such an environment.
From personal experience I've noticed that women frequently tend to dress impractically and wear inappropriate shoes for the environment. This image seems to highlight that problem. Okay! ;D
-
Oh, dear! Someone better hurry and notify Howard Schatz that Ray is coming after him next ;)
-
Oh, dear! Someone better hurry and notify Howard Schatz that Ray is coming after him next ;)
Don't be silly!
-
Don't be silly!
Why? Howard is certainly known for photographing women "dressed inappropriately for the environment." (https://www.google.com/search?q=howard+schatz+underwater+photography&espv=2&biw=1744&bih=1345&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjjjtHx0bHMAhVENSYKHcFpAu8Q_AUIBigB) ;)
-
It would be great if that would be followed by no more (silly) comments ;)
Darr definitely has a point. While I wouldn't presume to comment on his actual intent, the particular wording Kevin used (that Darr quoted) was pretty awkward, and I can see how it would betray an attitude that could be found offensive. Camp had it right in his thread - it's a little patronizing.
-
Darr definitely has a point. While I wouldn't presume to comment on his actual intent, the particular wording Kevin used (that Darr quoted) was pretty awkward, and I can see how it would betray an attitude that could be found offensive. Camp had it right in his thread - it's a little patronizing.
I agree. I found the images inspiring and the biographies interesting and am thankful for the article. However, while I know Kevin had the best of intentions, I find some of the text to be condescending toward the subjects he is honoring.
-
... could be found offensive...
There is absolutely nothing in this world that someone, somewhere won't find offensive, let alone PC nuts.
-
There is absolutely nothing in this world that someone, somewhere won't find offensive, let alone PC nuts.
Absolutely true. Nevertheless, "photography got easier so women got more involved" isn't an example of that phenomenon.
-
Absolutely true. Nevertheless, "photography got easier so women got more involved" isn't an example of that phenomenon.
And which part of that statement is offensive and why? Actually, Kevin used a neutral term "anyone," not "women," but I'll grant you that your inference is possible, for the sake of the argument. Photography has become easier for everyone, men or women, black or white, yellow or brown, so should everyone who entered the field in the digital era be offended by that statement? The fact that, historically, there were (some) women working as photographers when it was really, really hard (physically, chemically, time, etc.) does not negate the fact that today there are much more women (and other categories) who are photographers. What's so offensive about that?
-
And which part of that statement is offensive and why? Actually, Kevin used a neutral term "anyone," not "women," but I'll grant you that your inference is possible, for the sake of the argument. Photography has become easier for everyone, men or women, black or white, yellow or brown, so should everyone who entered the field in the digital era be offended by that statement? The fact that, historically, there were (some) women working as photographers when it was really, really hard (physically, chemically, time, etc.) does not negate the fact that today there are much more women (and other categories) who are photographers. What's so offensive about that?
I'm not that guy that is going to parse every word and look for a reason to be offended about something - as you said, there's far more than enough of that going on already. What I think we have here is largely a case of good intent that was worded in a clunky manner, but what's important to understand is that to some people, the fact that the clunky phrasing is the default *is* the problem. True - Kevin said "anyone," not "women," but I'm going to assume that when contrasting the "male dominated" field of the 70s/80s/90s with a field that has "changed," and when the article is clearly *about* women, the change he is referring to is fairly clear, the use of "anyone" notwithstanding.
Pair that with the suggestion that the field changed (i.e. women became more involved) because photography got "a lot" easier, and you can certainly see why someone might draw the conclusion that the author believes women were less capable of being successful when the discipline was more difficult, and thats a bad assertion. (In addition to being suspect on the surface, as others have pointed out, I'm not sure it's even factually correct to state that men dominated the field -certainly women have been prominent in the field, if not dominant, for decades.)
As a practical matter, nothing I've seen from Kevin here (or anywhere) would imply that he views women as "second-class" photographers, and please understand that I'm not saying that. I think that it's far more likely that in trying to find and write a intro to his article, Kevin chose some unfortunate verbiage and created a contrast he did not really intend to. Certainly I wouldn't "pull *my* subscription" over such a thing, but then again I'm not of a class that sees slights that are woven into the fabric of society regularly directed at me.
Bottom line - I think Kevin intended to highlight some women that are doing great work. I think in the process of doing so, he inadvertently illustrated a part of a society that still sometimes views women's accomplishments through a lens (sorry :) ) of exceptional by virtue of being from women (or despite being from women, if I am being less charitable), as opposed to simply being exceptional. Do I think Kevin believes that? No. Do I understand why Darr could draw the conclusion? Yes.
-
... someone might draw the conclusion that the author believes women were less capable of being successful when the discipline was more difficult...
You phrased it in a slightly twisted manner: I do not think Kevin (or I) implied "less capable" or "less successful," but simply "less involved." As I pointed out (and others), throughout history, we did have highly successful women photographers. So, saying that women were less involved when the discipline was more difficult simply reflects the reality of the past. Those highly successful women photographers serve more as the exception that proves the rule. There are many more fields of activity were women were less historically involved or that were male-dominated, and nothing offensive about that either, a simple fact of life and the times. Were there women blacksmiths in the past (or today)? Sure. Was there a 50/50 split among blacksmiths? Highly doubtful. Replace blacksmith requirements of the past with, say, a 3-D printer of today, and there is no reason why the ratio couldn't be 50/50. Simple statistical probability, nothing offensive about it.
-
You phrased it in a slightly twisted manner: I do not think Kevin (or I) implied "less capable" or "less successful," but simply "less involved."
Well, no. That's what *should* have been said. What was done, in actuality, was that a direct comparison was drawn between men excelling when the field was implicitly harder, and women becoming more successful when it got *easier." There's really no debating that, as the text is quite clear.
However, as I said, I believe it to be clumsy writing, not intentionally sexist writing. (And I'm sympathetic. In my academic days I was a pretty good writer - but intros were so hard that I'd almost invariably write the whole of my text then go back and try, usually unsuccessfully, to craft a good opening.)
My only point is that I can see why Darr might take offense to it, and that doing so isn't an example of PC run amok. I mean, no one is demanding that Kevin issue future trigger warnings or make LuLa a "safe space" ;)
-
That pin has more effing angels/demons dancing on it than I would ever have thought possible.
Heysoos! as they say here, but spell differently; but I don't want to offend, so I shall fudge the issue.
Rob C
-
Enough, while I had all great intentions, I can see why some readers read into the text the way they did. For anyone who has misunderstood my intentions I apologize. If I didn't make it clear, then I will here. The article was about honoring women and what they have done in photography, as well as some who have been a major part of this site as contributors and instructors. Nothing but the utmost respect was being implied. I did use the word "anyone" in my text when referring to photography becoming easier since digital. All of us have benefited from this revolution. Look, I am not a writer by trade and thus sometimes don't craft my words as elegantly as some could. But, I think if you read the article, you will see that all I wanted to do was recognize the women who have been part of Luminous-Landscape as well those that have influenced me early on.
I hope you enjoy Part that will be published tomorrow.
-
Enough, while I had all great intentions, I can see why some readers read into the text the way they did. For anyone who has misunderstood my intentions I apologize. If I didn't make it clear, then I will here. The article was about honoring women and what they have done in photography, as well as some who have been a major part of this site as contributors and instructors. Nothing but the utmost respect was being implied. I did use the word "anyone" in my text when referring to photography becoming easier since digital. All of us have benefited from this revolution. Look, I am not a writer by trade and thus sometimes don't craft my words as elegantly as some could. But, I think if you read the article, you will see that all I wanted to do was recognize the women who have been part of Luminous-Landscape as well those that have influenced me early on.
I hope you enjoy Part that will be published tomorrow.
Your apology isn't mine to accept (though I hope Darr will acknowledge it), but I certainly think it's good of you, and I hope you don't feel as if I was attacking or otherwise calling you sexist or offensive toward women. I loved the work the article featured and I'm sure part 2 will feature more great work by great photographers who happen to be female ;)
-
I find myself viewing these bickering matches with more and more distaste as I age (mellow?). I do know that as often as I am tempted to reply with real world experience I find it is just not worth the additional misunderstandings and misinterpretations it seems guaranteed to generate. But this one, " a bunch of old, very old men" keeps creeping into to my day since it appeared this morning.
All I know for sure is that I worked side by side with some amazing, little celebrated, hard working Navy photojournalists during the Vietnam era and not once did I feel looked down at for being a woman, or for that matter, celebrated because of that inconvenient truth. I did my job. I lost dear friends, the caverns remain to this day which I try really really hard to fill with seeing through the eyes they helped me hone. Celebrate the the fact that you have enough complaints that you somehow won the lottery and still have the gift of life dammit!
-
No bickering here. I was having what I thought was an interesting exchange with Slobodon about the perceptions certain phrasing can generate and trying to explain why another member here might have seen things differently. Just trying to bridge a little gap, with no judgment laid down on anyone - Kevin included.
-
Ray, I gotta tell you, you made me laugh. You are obviously an intelligent and perceptive guy who has some very interesting ideas, but I think you sorta stepped on your dick on this one (assuming that Ray isn't short for Ray-Anne, or something.) Why shouldn't she take a photo of anything she wants to take a photo of? People spend lifetimes taking pictures of bugs, and good on them. Cindy Sherman became famous taking pictures of herself pretending to be somebody else, and IMHO that's a good thing. Robert Mapplethorpe took a photo of himself with a bullwhip inserted in an untoward place, and the photo's in museums. So...lay down for a while with a cool damp cloth on your forehead, and these strange thoughts will go away.
-
Why? Howard is certainly known for photographing women "dressed inappropriately for the environment." (https://www.google.com/search?q=howard+schatz+underwater+photography&espv=2&biw=1744&bih=1345&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjjjtHx0bHMAhVENSYKHcFpAu8Q_AUIBigB) ;)
Sorry! I don't get it. Posing in the nude is not inappropriate, unless one is a prude, which I'm not. However, walking through dense scrubland or a rainforest, whilst nude, could be considered inappropriate because one would be exposed to scratches from thorns and insect bites.
Also, any tigers in the vicinity might consider the sight of bare female flesh a great delicacy. ;)
-
Why shouldn't she take a photo of anything she wants to take a photo of? People spend lifetimes taking pictures of bugs, and good on them.....
C'mon now, John. I'm not criticising her right to take the photo. It just strikes me a bit odd and a bit ridiculous to be dressed that way in a rugged, natural environment. That's the impression I got. Is it not perfectly natural for someone to verbalize an impression?
Perhaps such an impression comes more naturally to me than to others because I've spent a lot of time trekking in rugged terrain over the years.
-
It just strikes me a bit odd and a bit ridiculous to be dressed that way in a rugged, natural environment.
So, you don't see the juxtaposition of a lovely girl in a harsh environment? That was her friggin' point!!!!
I think Patricia has it right...a bunch of old (likely white) guys passing judgement on the younger generation...boy, it sucks being old but it's better than the alternative...
-
Ray,
I think you need to see more of her work before you can make a sensible comment about it. This one photo isn't enough of a sample.
For $6 you could read the entire article.
-
Or Ray can visit her website to see more of her work for free (nice work actually which is why she won her trip to Antarctica)...
Michele Sons' The Feminine Landscape (http://www.michelesonsphotography.com/featured-gallery/)
-
So, you don't see the juxtaposition of a lovely girl in a harsh environment? That was her friggin' point!!!!
I think Patricia has it right...a bunch of old (likely white) guys passing judgement on the younger generation...boy, it sucks being old but it's better than the alternative...
Of course I see the juxtaposition, otherwise how could I comment on it. You're being silly.
As I mentioned, photos are generally expected to stand on their own, without requiring elaborate verbal descriptions of the circumstances, unless they are of historical interest of course.
I'm rather concerned for the young lady. She looks as though she might trip over a boulder or slip on the gravel on her way back to the helicopter, or 4WD as the case may be.
I'm not passing judgement. I'm sharing with you my reaction to the photo. What's your problem?
-
Hi Darr,
It took some effort to find the text you have quoted. As usual, you make a very good point.
I have checked out Michele Sons's gallery a bit more, and there are quite a few great pictures in "The Feminine Landscape" project. I like the one below a bit more than the others:
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e952a7e4b03ce768ac5a6a/54e95700e4b06d2d721f216c/563eb83de4b0ab3b508366f2/1446950978053/Spirit+of+Light+11.5x22.jpg?format=1500w)
Getting back to the original image, would it be one of those ads for Profoto with a female model in black lava environment it would not considered in any way unnatural. Now that we have a lady positioning herself as the subject in a similar environment it evokes reaction. We may be elderly but perhaps still not grown up?
Doing self portraits in landscape is not an easy thing. Takes a lot of knowledge. The image I linked to is a great example of that.
Best regards
Erik
"Ever since I started my formal education in photography, I have had a tremendous respect for women photographers. Men dominated the field in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s but that has changed drastically since then. With the advent of the digital camera, photography became a lot easier for anyone with a desire to take good pictures."
This is a most chauvinistic statement. This honors women? I am insulted and will stop there.
This site is ran by a bunch of old men; very old men.
No more funds from me.
-
What's your problem?
That your OP was totally out of context with what the photographer was trying to do...did you actually look at her website? Did you see her body of work? Do you have a friggin' clue what she is trying to do?
Your sudo-concern about her welfare is massively chauvinistic...to pretend you are concerned for her wellbeing is actually rather offensive to me and probably to her. Oh dear me, how can she expose herself to such hardships for the sake of photography...somebody save her from herself!!!!
-
That your OP was totally out of context with what the photographer was trying to do...did you actually look at her website? Did you see her body of work? Do you have a friggin' clue what she is trying to do?
Your sudo-concern about her welfare is massively chauvinistic...to pretend you are concerned for her wellbeing is actually rather offensive to me and probably to her. Oh dear me, how can she expose herself to such hardships for the sake of photography...somebody save her from herself!!!!
Jeff,
Don't you understand the concept that a photo should be able to stand on its own merit? I was perfectly honest in informing readers that I hadn't read the text of the article. When you hang a photo on your wall, do you always include a text describing what you were attempting to achieve when taking the photo?
From my perspective, the photo is of a completely anonymous woman posing in a rugged landscape that looks as though it is miles from anywhere. There's no indication that it is a self-portrait, so it seems perfectly natural to me to wonder what on earth is a woman doing in such an environment, dressed as she is.
Is she just foolish, or was she on the way to a party by helicopter, then on the spur of the moment asked the pilot to land at a particular spot on the way, so she could admire the view and have her photo taken?
These are the sorts of thoughts about the photo that anyone might have who is considering just the photo alone, without a lot of background information.
-
Jeff,
Don't you understand the concept that a photo should be able to stand on its own merit?
Uh yeah...and I think her shot stands on its' own (even if you don't) but any single image stands also with a body of work that relates to the single image. If you view her website you would see this single image fits quite nicely in the body of her work and the fact she won a trip to Antarctica kinda elevates that shot even further...face it bud, you screwed the pooch and now you are just dog paddling try to arrive at a graceful death. Just quit posting an this thread so it will die. If you keep trying to justify your posts, you will keep getting eviscerated.
-
Uh yeah...and I think her shot stands on its' own (even if you don't) but any single image stands also with a body of work that relates to the single image. If you view her website you would see this single image fits quite nicely in the body of her work and the fact she won a trip to Antarctica kinda elevates that shot even further...face it bud, you screwed the pooch and now you are just dog paddling try to arrive at a graceful death. Just quit posting an this thread so it will die. If you keep trying to justify your posts, you will keep getting eviscerated.
Fortunately I don't have a big ego as you appear to have, so I don't worry about being eviscerated. The rationality of my arguments can stand on their own. ;)
-
Hi Darr,
It took some effort to find the text you have quoted. As usual, you make a very good point.
I have checked out Michele Sons's gallery a bit more, and there are quite a few great pictures in "The Feminine Landscape" project. I like the one below a bit more than the others:
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e952a7e4b03ce768ac5a6a/54e95700e4b06d2d721f216c/563eb83de4b0ab3b508366f2/1446950978053/Spirit+of+Light+11.5x22.jpg?format=1500w)
Getting back to the original image, would it be one of those ads for Profoto with a female model in black lava environment it would not considered in any way unnatural. Now that we have a lady positioning herself as the subject in a similar environment it evokes reaction. We may be elderly but perhaps still not grown up?
Doing self portraits in landscape is not an easy thing. Takes a lot of knowledge. The image I linked to is a great example of that.
Best regards
Erik
That's certainly a spectacular image, Erik, and sand is very nice to walk on, unlike hard stones. In a dessert like that one could be totally nude and it wouldn't be inappropriate. ;)
I wonder where the helicopter is? ;)
-
C'mon now, John. I'm not criticising her right to take the photo. It just strikes me a bit odd and a bit ridiculous to be dressed that way in a rugged, natural environment. That's the impression I got. Is it not perfectly natural for someone to verbalize an impression?
Perhaps such an impression comes more naturally to me than to others because I've spent a lot of time trekking in rugged terrain over the years.
Has anyone thought about the possibility that she wasn't even there? Copy and pasted into the scene in Photoshop?
-
Fortunately I don't have a big ego as you appear to have, so I don't worry about being eviscerated. The rationality of my arguments can stand on their own. ;)
Ray, there isn't any rationality in your arguments. Before posting did you reflect on the content before hitting the post button or is this whole thread a stirring exercise? :(
-
That's certainly a spectacular image, Erik, and sand is very nice to walk on, unlike hard stones. In a dessert like that one could be totally nude and it wouldn't be inappropriate. ;)
I wonder where the helicopter is? ;)
So in this one (the desert photo) you would not be concerned that she would burn her feet on the hot sand, or get heat stroke, she could even be nude... this is getting laughable...
-
So in this one (the desert photo) you would not be concerned that she would burn her feet on the hot sand, or get heat stroke, she could even be nude... this is getting laughable...
No. I have assumed that such a lady would not do this if the sand were unbearably hot. Desert temperatures are not unbearably hot all the time, and the very long shadow in the sand indicates that the time of day this shot was taken was probably early in the morning or late in the afternoon. Did you not notice the shadow? If not, then that's what's laughable. ;D
-
This is a most chauvinistic statement. This honors women? I am insulted and will stop there.
This site is ran by a bunch of old men; very old men.
No more funds from me.
That statement didn't sound chauvinistic to me, but it's interpretation in the above post is grotesquely warped.
This site is indeed ran by a bunch of old men, they have done it for many years and amazingly well. In fact, they leave in dust all other sites, ran by younger men and women.
Well, compared to Justin Bieber or Justin Trudeau they can't move as fast and their hair is much lighter, but in comparison to the best and finest surviving presidential candidates they seems to be just in the right age range. And that applies both to the male and female contingent in the big circus.
Kevin For President!
-
... this is getting laughable...
Which I believe is actually his point. After reading all of his comments/opinions regarding the image in question, I have no doubt it's a joke and meant to "stir the pot" as they say. No one is as dense while still be well spoken as he appears to be.
-
Ray, there isn't any rationality in your arguments. Before posting did you reflect on the content before hitting the post button or is this whole thread a stirring exercise? :(
Well put, Stamper!
-
Which I believe is actually his point. After reading all of his comments/opinions regarding the image in question, I have no doubt it's a joke and meant to "stir the pot" as they say. No one is as dense while still be well spoken as he appears to be.
I'm not sure that's a joke, Ray seems very serious in his posts. But I recall seeing a similar and a quite difficult photograph posted here a few years ago (Post #172 in the thread below). The composition was nice, but the environment seemed totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress and with bare feet. She must have been helicoptered to that site.
Hot woman in a cold valley (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=67501.msg536293#msg536293)
-
Ray, there isn't any rationality in your arguments. Before posting did you reflect on the content before hitting the post button or is this whole thread a stirring exercise? :(
What that statement really means, Stamper, is that there isn't any rationality in your head, regarding my argument. ;)
-
I'm not sure that's a joke, Ray seems very serious in his posts. But I recall seeing a similar and a quite difficult photograph posted here a few years ago (Post #172 in the thread below). The composition was nice, but the environment seemed totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress and with bare feet. She must have been helicoptered to that site.
Hot woman in a cold valley (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=67501.msg536293#msg536293)
Thanks for the link to that old thread, Les. I assure you if anyone had criticised that photo on the grounds of inappropriate dress for the surroundings, I would not have jumped into a flurry of indignation and engaged in ad hominem attacks.
I'm not really interested in just praising every photo I comment on, as most people seem to do. That's not what critique is about.
The image you link to needs reprocessing. It was a long time ago. I'd make the foreground brighter were I to process it today. I think it's pretty obvious, even excluding the context of the article about photographic manipulation, that the photo is a joke. The kangaroo was inserted at your suggestion, to create a better balance. ;D
However, I do prefer the Himalaya Dawn scene, shown on the first page of the thread. I now have a 4ft x 12ft polyptych print of that image on my wall, but without the nude ladies (?), because inserting them into the scene was also just a joke to highlight the potential absurdity of photographic manipulation.
Now, if Michele Son's photo that I've commented on, is also intended as a joke, then why not just say so, and I will admit my lack of perception in this regard.
-
I'm a little late to this party, but I'm sure I've not seen the name of one of the greats: Laura Gilpin.
Surely a person who produces The Prairie (1917) deserves a place near the very top of the tree.