Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: KLaban on July 29, 2019, 06:19:38 am
-
On the Street. Varanasi.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/On_the_Street.jpg)
-
Another excellent image.
-
A fine image of a guy sitting there.
-
Another excellent image.
Thanks, Eric.
-
A fine image of a guy sitting there.
Thanks, Russ.
It's actually a 'gal' sitting there - one of the many widows living on the streets of Varanasi - and was never intended to be anything other.
-
Thanks, Russ.
It's actually a 'gal' sitting there - one of the many widows living on the streets of Varanasi - and was never intended to be anything other.
Poor woman, what a destiny! With all those fortune tellers around, you'd think she'd have migrated before her parents flogged her off the books! Shows you, though, can't escape destiny. As I, too, discovered, what's for you won't go around you, and what's not you might as well forget. Trouble is, how do we know which is which, or is it as Saul Leiter said: nobody knows what's what, and when they do, it's too late?
;-)
-
City of Widows (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/city-widows-38000-forgotten-women-varanasi-1505560)
-
I like a lot of your work but this is particularly striking for me.
-
I like a lot of your work but this is particularly striking for me.
Martin, thank you, very much appreciated!
-
Haunting
-
Haunting
Indeed, Matt.
We were often humbled by the stoicism shown in the face of adversity.
-
Thanks, Russ.
It's actually a 'gal' sitting there - one of the many widows living on the streets of Varanasi - and was never intended to be anything other.b
How can we know it is a ‘gal’, Keith? You obviously didn’t spent enough time with woman to know they can be very illogical in how they dress, A headscarf certainly is not a proof of feminine.
I suggest you study the masters of feminism before you portray such a difficult genre.
;) ;) ;) :)
But, personally, I like this portrait of that guy. ;D
-
How can we know it is a ‘gal’, Keith? You obviously didn’t spent enough time with woman to know they can be very illogical in how they dress, A headscarf certainly is not a proof of feminine.
I suggest you study the masters of feminism before you portray such a difficult genre.
;) ;) ;) :)
But, personally, I like this portrait of that guy. ;D
I remember that! :)
-
How can we know it is a ‘gal’, Keith? You obviously didn’t spent enough time with woman to know they can be very illogical in how they dress, A headscarf certainly is not a proof of feminine.
I suggest you study the masters of feminism before you portray such a difficult genre.
;) ;) ;) :)
But, personally, I like this portrait of that guy. ;D
;D
-
The image obviously passes the ambiguity test if Russ doesn’t know if it is a guy or a gal. It’s getting closer to street I think. Real street or actual street or proper street or Magnum street.
-
The image obviously passes the ambiguity test if Russ doesn’t know if it is a guy or a gal. It’s getting closer to street I think. Real street or actual street or proper street or Magnum street.
If ambiguity is the parameter, we ‘at Lula’ are all a bit street. Aren’t we?
#metostreet
:o
-
If ambiguity is the parameter, we ‘at Lula’ are all a bit street. Aren’t we?
#metostreet
:o
Vuistregel:
"om" met 1 o, betekent "to" met 1 o.
"ook" met 2 oo's, betekent "too" met 2 oo's.
en "te veel o's" schrijf je ook met twee oo's: and "too many o's" too is written with two oo's.
En wees gerust, nee, ik ben geen taalpurist, maar dit verschil is soms moeilijk uit een zin te destilleren.
-
Vuistregel:
"om" met 1 o, betekent "to" met 1 o.
"ook" met 2 oo's, betekent "too" met 2 oo's.
en "te veel o's" schrijf je ook met twee oo's: and "too many o's" too is written with two oo's.
En wees gerust, nee, ik ben geen taalpurist, maar dit verschil is soms moeilijk uit een zin te destilleren.
Ha! Tx for the linguistique help, Oscar, much appreciated.
So: #metoostreet ... correct?
:)
-
Great work.
-
Thanks, Rajan.
-
Ha! Tx for the linguistique help, Oscar, much appreciated.
So: #metoostreet ... correct?
:)
Oui.
-
If ambiguity is the parameter, we ‘at Lula’ are all a bit street. Aren’t we?
#metostreet
:o
Yeah, I think we probably are. Remove that, and there'd be not a lot to say.
I used to think that the law was straightforward and clear-cut: follow what it says and you'll be okay. Then it struck me: were that the case, we would only need one lawyer on each dispute. He'd explain the law and that would be that. Now we know that things don't work like that at all, and that even the law is a puddle of alternative ideas and opinions, and the more you pay the more likely the thing will turn out to agree with your opinion too.
:-)