Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: cjogo on January 06, 2014, 11:53:18 pm
-
Traveling from a HP Corp job > in Scottsdale > 1990
-
Full interior ...
-
Gosh, I wish those were in colour... to highlight the extreme tackiness.
-
Gosh, I wish those were in colour... to highlight the extreme tackiness.
Why the need to offend, Ed? Different cultures have different ideas, you know, and faith can move mountains.
Rob C
-
Bravo Rob!
And one might wonder why I don't participate here much.
We're surrounded. Circle the wagons!
-
Wish I could see in color for art --- I shot color for 35 years professionally > but when I was behind the camera for art sake -- << it was full B&W >>
Large well-known gallery sales (of color ) just started about '95 'round here == I dabbled > but had the edge with B&W > better respected in the Carmel scene.
I probably don't have 150 color art images .... in 40 years...
I use to carry one ~ color negative roll film back ~ with me on travels -- {You have seen this one :-) }
-
Gosh, I wish those were in colour... to highlight the extreme tackiness.
I had just finished shooting hundreds of rolls of VPS 35/120 for HP event > for 4 days .... last thing > was color on my mind ;-)
-
Why the need to offend, Ed? Different cultures have different ideas, you know, and faith can move mountains.
Rob C
Bravo Rob!
And one might wonder why I don't participate here much.
We're surrounded. Circle the wagons!
Rob, Walter,
The short answer: I am very sorry that my comment gave offence. Giving offence was most assuredly not my intention, but obviously I did so and I apologise for messing up so badly. I don't know you personally but we have interacted on these boards for a long time and I feel I know you and like you, and so the fact that I have given offence makes me feel very bad.
The longer answer (and I would ask you to read this carefully, I want you to know where I am coming from). I think we all need to make some mental separation from criticising an object and criticising the concept or beliefs which led to that object being made in the first place and put in its environment. The fact that I think that (say) Wells Cathedral is a beautiful building does not make me in favour of Christianity as such, any more than thinking that a small church in Arizona looks kitsch and tacky (actually I quite like kitsch and tacky) makes me somehow anti Christian.
Think of this. Disliking the someone's taste in interior decoration does not make me against the concept of Home. Finding AFairley's photos of strip malls rather bleak and depressing does not make me anti-shopping. The fact that I like Martin Parr's unflattering images of people does not make me anti-people. Thinking a modern Hindu temple is delightfully hideous does not make me anti Hindu, any more than thinking that the Alhambra Palace is beautiful does not make me pro Muslim.
-
I had just finished shooting hundreds of rolls of VPS 35/120 for HP event > for 4 days .... last thing > was color on my mind ;-)
Don't get me wrong... I absolutely love the images. The fairy lights on the statue just do it for me. The fact that they are in BW probably makes me stay with the images longer, imagining the colours.
-
Ed, you suffer from an acute case of cerebral-mandibular dysrhythmia. ;)
-
Ed, you suffer from an acute case of cerebral-mandibular dysrhythmia. ;)
That can be alleviated -- shoot B&W :-)
-
That can be alleviated -- shoot B&W :-)
Has anyone else noticed? These typed emoticons of smiles or frowns are intrinsically designed for us more, well, less energetic gentlemen (lazy sods, some might say) in that they always depict us in the horizontal mode. Of course, that's not to say some might not be being anything but lazy - I speak only for myself, of course.
;-(
Rob C
-
Rob, Walter,
The short answer: I am very sorry that my comment gave offence. Giving offence was most assuredly not my intention,
Ed,
Thank you for the explanation. I certainly did not see that you gave offence. What I saw was that you had an idea, a reaction, and articulated it somewhat poorly. I guess it would be fair to say that I thought you had shot yourself in the foot. You have clarified your position commendably and there are no hard feelings at this end.
Cheers,
W
-
Moderator, members are disagreeing with each other. Can you please sort it out? ;) ;D
-
Ed, you suffer from an acute case of cerebral-mandibular dysrhythmia. ;)
Had to work that one out from first principles... in this case Google was not my friend. Yes, in this case I broke my #1 rule for posting on the interweb, which is never ever to discuss religion or politics, and so acute was my case of C-M-D that I didn't even realise I was breaking it! My bad, as they say in the colonies.
Ed,
Thank you for the explanation. I certainly did not see that you gave offence. What I saw was that you had an idea, a reaction, and articulated it somewhat poorly. I guess it would be fair to say that I thought you had shot yourself in the foot. You have clarified your position commendably and there are no hard feelings at this end.
Cheers,
W
You can say that again! Thanks for replying - I feel better now!
Moderator, members are disagreeing with each other. Can you please sort it out? ;) ;D
Seriously? (At this point I should insert an "I get your irony" emoticon, but I don't know how.)
Part of me quite misses the flame wars which used to break out on this forum a few years back. Trouble is, everyone is so damn nice these days. I remember one guy - I think from the mid-west - who posted endless pictures of nondescript houses, unappealing swamps etc, usually taken in flat light, always with some glaring technical deficiency, and no matter how polite and constructive the resulting criticism was he always took it very badly. Actually, it wasn't so much a case of a flame war, more a case of some random guy ranting and raving about his unrecognised talent and everyone else rolling their eyes and looking vaguely embarrassed. Hilarious. I think he got banned in the end.