Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Isaac on September 15, 2015, 01:43:09 pm
-
Camera Restricta : If the camera decides that too many photos have been taken at your location, it retracts the shutter and blocks the viewfinder. You can't take any more pictures here.
http://philippschmitt.com/projects/camera-restricta
-
So that's the reason your only photograph is a fence post?
-
your only photograph
Not even the only photograph of mine posted to LuLa forums.
-
Wow! I'm impressed. Where are the others?
-
Wow! I'm impressed. Where are the others?
In plain sight.
Where are your insights about Camera Restricta ?
-
...Where are your insights about Camera Restricta ?
Pssst! Do not let the PC nuts hear about it. Next thing you know, they'd quickly go past landmarks and over-photographed sights to... people. If you are photographing a group, it must match the demographics of the locality by race, gender, etc., or the shutter would say "nein, verboten!" If you are photographing a single person, you could, as long as you'd have enough of other demographics present on your memory card prior to that. If not, it will let you keep that shot for the next hour or so, while you are frantically running around trying to add PC diversity to your shots.
-
Pssst! Do not let the PC nuts hear about it. Next thing you know, they'd quickly go past landmarks and over-photographed sights to... people. If you are photographing a group, it must match the demographics of the locality by race, gender, etc., or the shutter would say "nein, verboten!" If you are photographing a single person, you could, as long as you'd have enough of other demographics present on your memory card prior to that. If not, it will let you keep that shot for the next hour or so, while you are frantically running around trying to add PC diversity to your shots.
I like that idea, Slobodan; it would keep me safe from doing the wrong thing even, as usual, if in the best of possible taste.
;-)
Rob
-
And a model customized for your prejudices too.
But I never know what mine are meant to be 'til I've dropped in on Lula.
-
And a model customized for your prejudices too.
Here we go again... I post a general observation and immediately get a personal attack in response!
-
Here we go again... I post a general observation and immediately get a personal attack in response!
Don't you have prejudices?
-
"The project is not only a piece about censorship in a policital sense, but also questions our photographic practice. With digital photography displacing film, taking pictures has essentially become free, resulting in an infinite stream of imagery.
Camera Restricta introduces new limitations to prevent an overflow of digital imagery. As a byproduct, these limitations also bring about new sensations like the thrill of being the first or last person to photograph a certain place."
-
Some years ago I read a very serious editorial in a photography magazine that proposed that there be a moratorium on photography of iconic locations. It opined that there had already been enough images made of those places and there couldn't possibly be any further need for them. As a compromise position it suggested that there be some mechanism to select and license professional nature photographers to create a body of work of these iconic places and after that was completed there would be no more photography allowed. This was somehow supposed to protect these sites from some imaginary, perceived threat from over exposure to photography. If it was in The Onion, I might have begrudgingly acknowledged some humor in it, but it was perfectly serious. There appears to be no limit on the desire of some to limit the liberty of others. For the most benevolent reasons, of course. >:(
-
Well of course, David. If you photograph those places too much you wear them down and they disappear. I'm surprised the EPA didn't get into the act and get the president to dictate a law.
-
Camera Restricta...
Not sure if it does some sense.
I personally consider the camera as a tool, not a partner, which means that I give commands and it executes (instead of arguing about what to photograph).
But it probably make sense for those more sensitive to the originality of their shots.
-
My metanarrative can kick the crap our of your metanarrative. Nanna, nanna, nanana....
;D
Rand
-
Whoever came up with this idea should be publicly whipped
-
Whoever came up with this idea should be publicly whipped
Are you advocating voyeurism?
Rob C
-
Are you advocating voyeurism?
Rob C
When you really get down to it isn't that what 90% of the web is all about anyway?
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to demolish the over-photographed landmarks?
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to demolish the over-photographed landmarks?
Isis are working on that already.
-
Isis are working on that already.
Looks like they think that even people are over-photographed.
-
Are you advocating voyeurism?
Rob C
No, no relation at all. Where I grew up the expression is used in a methaphorical sense to express rejection to a stupid idea or action.
Regards
-
Whoever came up with this idea should be publicly whipped
Wouldn't it be simpler to demolish the over-photographed landmarks?
No, I agree that a good flogging is in order.
-
Look on the bright side. We may not have to endure any more photographs of cats.
-
IMHO such a tool make as much sense as a tool that stops you from having sex in a certain position because "a lot of people before you already had sex in that position", which means it completly fails to consider that taking a photograph is also a personal experience (on just a social one).
-
Look on the bright side. We may not have to endure any more photographs of cats.
Cats tend to move.
-
Getty Images has 2859 versions of Antelope Canyon, 4,000 images of Taj Mahal, and 2500 images of Rome Colosseum. It's about time to stop this nonsense.
-
Getty Images has 2859 versions of Antelope Canyon, 4,000 images of Taj Mahal, and 2500 images of Rome Colosseum. It's about time to stop this nonsense.
What nonsense? Counting how many photos of a single subject there are?
-
What nonsense? Counting how many photos of a single subject there are?
Why so serious, Diego?
Not to offend the Lula readers, I never use those yellow funnicons, but most of my posts have an implied one. If you ever wonder whether I'm serious or joking, you can assume the latter. Keep smiling!
-
Why so serious, Diego?
Not to offend the Lula readers, I never use those yellow funnicons, but most of my posts have an implied one. If you ever wonder whether I'm serious or joking, you can assume the latter. Keep smiling!
Are you sure I was serious?
-
Good to see that the great minds think alike.
Let's hope that the maker of the camera is also on the same wavelength.
-
Good to see that the great minds think alike.
Let's hope that the maker of the camera is also on the same wavelength.
As I said http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103879.msg852896#msg852896 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103879.msg852896#msg852896), such a tool may make sense for some.
-
Whoever came up with this idea should be publicly whipped
Do you think this idea comes from Saoudi Arabia?
-
Leaping in late, but as I note this is now a numbers game, here's a quotation from the BJP in an interview with the Image Bank as was: we have 36,000 images of the Eiffel Tower.
I think that was in the years B.D. (Before Digital). Imagine feeding in image no. 36,001 and hoping to rent it out for money.
Then imagine feeding it in today, as no. 36,000,000 to whomsoever took it over, Big G or C. And still expecting to be paid in money. But wait: didn't the tower people decide to make it a copyrighted property some years ago? Maybe you'd end up paying them for your efforts.
Rob C