Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on April 02, 2018, 05:00:25 am
-
Interesting, the idea that CC should give way to camera talk; can anyone please indicate where there is already shortage of such talk on LuLa?
My experience has been that there is precious little else.
Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.
Strangely enough, it appears that the majority, or at least the more strident of the voices singing closure, are also very reluctant posters of their photographic images. I wonder why there might be that correlation; is there a subliminal fear that their images, should they exist, may reveal a little bit too much?
-
Rob, I agree there is great entertainment value in watching that melting point, but the political threads are so divisive, lead to much ill feeling and are ultimately pretty pointless. It strikes me that opinions are entrenched: how many folk here are swayed, really swayed, by other's beliefs and opinions?
I too would like to see more contributors posting images, but hey, perhaps it's just too much to expect from a photography forum.
;-)
-
I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.
-
Interesting, the idea that CC should give way to camera talk; can anyone please indicate where there is already shortage of such talk on LuLa?
My experience has been that there is precious little else.
Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.
Strangely enough, it appears that the majority, or at least the more strident of the voices singing closure, are also very reluctant posters of their photographic images. I wonder why there might be that correlation; is there a subliminal fear that their images, should they exist, may reveal a little bit too much?
I can only speak for myself. I closed that other thread about hate groups because although I was intrigued by the original information and wanted to share it, the ensuing thread served little purpose and was headed nowhere, I thought. I didn't want to be party to that.
As for posting images, some people are interested in doing so, others aren't, there's probably not more to it than that. I come here for the information and knowledge that is available. Others enjoy the sharing and discussions of photographic images.
-
I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.
Not sure about the gist of your message.
Do selfies equate to suicides by gun?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.
Also, some smartphones can handily outshoot a semiautomatic rifle (with 960 fps vs 1,000 rounds per minute).
-
Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.
Also, some smartphones can handily outshoot a semiautomatic rifle (with 960 fps vs 1,000 rounds per minute).
Wow. There are smartphones that can shoot 960 fps? I should start paying attention.
-
Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.
Have to agree with that, although both can have devastating effects on the person involved.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.
Interesting analogy between cameras and guns. Permit me to extend it.
With a camera, you can go out and create dozens of images very easily. Without a camera, but say with paper and pencil, it's not possible to make lots of images in a short time.
With a gun, you can go out and kill dozens of people very easily. Without a gun, but say with a knife, it's not possible to kill lots of people in a short time.
-
Wow. There are smartphones that can shoot 960 fps? I should start paying attention.
960 fps in a slo-mo movie mode. Sony Experia and Samsung S9.
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/5303-sony-xperia-xz2-beats-new-s9-with-960-fps-at-1080p
-
Do selfies equate to suicides by gun?
Cheers,
Bart
If you've ever looked closely at them, Bart, you'll know that a lot of them do.
-
I fail to see the point and usefulness of discussing politics here. Sure, it can be fun for a while to insult/make fun/jest/deride/humiliate/whatever the person/subject/topic that happens to be the news flavour of the day. But all too sudden it goes downhill, as everybody is right all the time.
As for posting/sharing photos, there are several places in Lula to do so, and several participants do so. If others choose not to do so, it is their prerogative. They should not be derided by their choice.
-
I don't, as a general rule, share my pictures online.
This is mostly because they make no sense one by one, and out of the context they're made to be placed in.
There's an open question as to whether they make sense IN context, but at least I feel there's a fighting chance.
-
Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.
That, Rob, was more or less my motivation in re-allowing political discussion in the Coffee Corner. I have found that I've needed a pretty light touch in the last month, with most of my warnings being in private.
A surprising amount of utter drivel has been written, but offensiveness of expression (as opposed to of views with which one might disagree) has been encouragingly rare.
Jeremy
-
Maybe Isaac will return, he never showed his pictures either. :)
-
Maybe Isaac will return, he never showed his pictures either. :)
He did post one of a... post* ;)
* as in "piece of timber"
-
I can only speak for myself. I closed that other thread about hate groups because although I was intrigued by the original information and wanted to share it, the ensuing thread served little purpose and was headed nowhere, I thought. I didn't want to be party to that.
As for posting images, some people are interested in doing so, others aren't, there's probably not more to it than that. I come here for the information and knowledge that is available. Others enjoy the sharing and discussions of photographic images.
But don't forget: you do provide a collection of images via zenfolio. That alone gives you "legitimacy" to express opinions on matters photographic; regarding politics, who knows anything for sure? Even the politicians are winging it every day.
:-)
Rob
-
But don't forget: you do provide a collection of images via zenfolio. That alone gives you "legitimacy" to express opinions on matters photographic; regarding politics, who knows anything for sure? Even the politicians are winging it every day.
:-)
Rob
Mike Johnston over on TOP (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html) makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question. (There is zero chance of me finding the particular blog entry, sorry.) Being a practitioner does affect the criticism though, I agree, maybe for the better and maybe not. I tend not to make comments on other people's photography, I don't have the vocabulary.
-
Mike Johnston over on TOP (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html) makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question. (There is zero chance of me finding the particular blog entry, sorry.) Being a practitioner does affect the criticism though, I agree, maybe for the better and maybe not. I tend not to make comments on other people's photography, I don't have the vocabulary.
That's why I started the Without Prejudice thread: not only do I not like commenting on work, but I don't much enjoy it coming towards me when it consists of "second guessing" how it should have been executed.
And even where one thinks one knows a thing or two, mistakes can happen. I bought a left-over copy of Italian Vogue this afternoon, first such magazine I have bought in, literally, decades. What a load of rubbish it seemed to be. Almost totally advertising pages with a very small editorial photography content. I had always thought Italian Vogue the leader in classy editorial content. Times, obviously, change.
But Steven Meisel's work looked very good indeed, especially in black and white.
:-(
-
Mike Johnston over on TOP (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html) makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question.
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.
Jeremy
-
(...)
Do selfies equate to suicides by gun?
Cheers,
Bart
Well, in some countries, yes. In Japan there are warnings against the use of selfie sticks in JR train stations (as seen in spring 2016). Probably a late addition to the infamous Complete Manual of Suicide that appeared in the early nineties in Japan. :(
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Well, in some countries, yes. In Japan there are warnings against the use of selfie sticks in JR train stations (as seen in spring 2016). Probably a late addition to the infamous Complete Manual of Suicide that appeared in the early nineties in Japan. :(
Suicide by selfie-stick is closer to Natural Selection, but almost equally tragic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Darwin at work.
-
Suicide by selfie stick probably happens about as often as people scald themselves with coffee that's too hot.
-
If I remember correctly, a year or two ago in Yellowstone NP, a guy wandered over to a geysor and decided to take a selfie while posed over the hole. The volcanic mud is very slippery and he fell in. Park officials said there was no point in trying to retrieve the body because there wouldn't be on. The boiling acidic water would quickly dissolve anything organic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2016/12/30/this-is-what-happens-when-you-fall-into-one-of-yellowstones-hot-springs/#6e710c6162b7
While I was there I had to talk a Chinese tourist out of taking a selfie with a buffalo. If I wasn't such a nice guy, I would have kept quiet and got my camera ready instead. ;)
Kent in SD
-
127 reported “selfie deaths” worldwide in the 18 months between March 2014 and September 2016. 78 out of it just in India.
-
Political discussions are great, but if only the other guys were able to think in an objective way they could only realize that I am the one who is right... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Political discussions are great, but if only the other guys were able to think in an objective way they could only realize that I am the one who is right... ;)
Not unless you agree with me, Bernard ;)
Jeremy
-
127 reported “selfie deaths” worldwide in the 18 months between March 2014 and September 2016. 78 out of it just in India.
When you have to take it, you have to take it, right? ;)
(Illustration by Gerard Haderer)