Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Scott O. on February 15, 2012, 04:53:41 pm
-
I read Ken Rockwell daily and find his writing generally illuminating and even sometimes useful. But his reputation was not enhanced today when he wrote on his daily blog (www.kenrockwell.com) "Michael Fatali, among the world's greatest photographic artists". This is the same Michael Fatali who was banned from Arches National Park because he lit a small fire under Delicate Arch to get some interesting reflections. I have been in his gallery in Springdale, UT (just outside Zion NP), met him, and enjoyed looking at his images. But his fire stunt is inexcusable under any circumstances and immediately took him off my list of photographers who I admire... Ken, there are many other photographers who deserve your praise and could be used to illustrate your point.
-
Caravaggio was a murderer but I'm keeping him on my list.
Gosh, was he an environmental photographer? I think you are comparing apples and grapefruit! ???
-
... immediately took him off my list of photographers who I admire..."
Stop the presses!!! The world is dying to know who you admire and who is on/off your list!
It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).
-
Stop the presses!!! The world is dying to know who you admire and who is on/off your list!
It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).
Boy Slobodan, you are certainly a sarcastic twit. "The world is dying to know..."? "small minded"? "Holier than the Pope"? "Idiotic comment"? "Unfortunate accident"? Been studying your thesaurus? Taken lessons from Don Rickles? If you presume to start a dialogue, kindly do so with a bit more civility. And fyi, he set 4 fires, 2 in Canyonlands and 2 in Arches. As I said, I have met him, admired work in his gallery, and as I haven't said, know someone very well who worked for him. I can assure you that he is in no way the kind of photographer I would look up to. I think KW could have easily come up with a better example.
-
I have to agree, he did it not do it by accident. He just thought he could do anything he wanted because he was fatali and that was Fatal.
Holier than know come on. When someone does this and I get confronted by a park ranger at Waldon's Pond who wants me to do extra crap, because, as he said I have a pro camera. He even brought up fatali's name. Remember the park world is a small world. To make a long story short, I quickly said I'm not him and since there was nothing posted at the entry. He had no right to ask me to fill out a special permit. He then proceeded to try to grab my equipment and force me to go with him after I had been there for 3.5 hours waiting for the light. I quickly said if you touch my gear I was going to throw you in Wyman's meadow pond. There 2 old guys there listening to it also told him to leave. But later after I finished I went up and filed a complaint on the park ranger. But we all are being faced with more regulations put on us every time someone does something stupid that makes the headlines.
But I will always say to every park and park ranger the same laws must apply to all, not just photographers. If photographers need to get special permits than so shall Writers, painters. After all we all are making money when photographing a park. I've always won the argument because discrimination cannot be tolerated.
WE all MUST STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS!!!
-
Wow. In the space of six posts Ken Rockwell, Fatali, - whoever he is - Caravaggio, apples and grapefruit, Slobodan, the Pope, Don Rickles, park rangers and environmental photographers have all got panned. Now that must be a record for Lula? :)
-
Wow. In the space of six posts Ken Rockwell, Fatali, - whoever he is - Caravaggio, apples and grapefruit, Slobodan, the Pope, Don Rickles, park rangers and environmental photographers have all got panned. Now that must be a record for Lula? :)
Wot! No Maggie? Wonder what Malvinas Tk11 will provide historians - maybe a little fire under some friggin' rocks. Hmm... bbqs at Stonehenge come to mind.
Rob C
-
Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum. Fatali coming up in photography conversations is our version of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).
Sorry, Slobodan, you lost :P
-
Well, Harri, pardon me for not being totally versed in the vigilante justice of the www (Wild West World), i.e., Godwin's Law, so enlighten me please: is the first one to bring the frown-upon subject to lose or is it the one who responds to it? ;)
-
Well, Harri, pardon me for not being totally versed in the vigilante justice of the www (Wild West World), i.e., Godwin's Law, so enlighten me please: is the first one to bring the frown-upon subject to lose or is it the one who responds to it? ;)
The answer from the dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s%20law):
When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted [sic] the argument.
and encycloepaeidiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):
...the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the [one-that-shalt-not-be-named] has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress
I'm just the messenger.
-
In which case it would be OP who mentioned it first, thus losing even before the debate started? ;) In that case no thread should ever start containing words "Fatali" and "Rockwell"?
P.S. You might have noticed that I treat the said law as rather silly, but I am just playing along.
-
Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum. Fatali coming up in photography conversations is our version of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).
Sorry, Slobodan, you lost :P
I didn't know that; any other things one should avoid?
Just asking... no desire to be an outlaw - too fatigued.
Rob C
-
In which case it would be OP who mentioned it first, thus losing even before the debate started? ;) In that case no thread should ever start containing words "Fatali" and "Rockwell"?
I think it's more of a case that this thread does not exist, and that we are just in some alternate universe.
P.S. You might have noticed that I treat the said law as rather silly, but I am just playing along.
How dare you mock the internets? Internet is serious business!
-
Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum.
Agreed! And Ken would have it no other way. That’s why it is often best to ignore him despite some useful tidbits within the rant.
-
As for the daft Godwin's Law.
Observation 3 should be noted from above link
Godwin's Law - Thanks to the Neocons, Godwin's law is now obsolete.
Or for those in the UK - Thanks to the BNP, Godwin's law is now obsolete.
-
Ken Rockwell is to photography forums what avian influenza is to birds. Whatever he spreads, other forums are bound to catch.
-
I read Ken Rockwell daily and find his writing generally illuminating and even sometimes useful.
:o
Ken Rockwell talking about tripods
Tripods - With a digital camera with Image Stabilization or VR, there's no need for a tripod.
Ken Rockwell giving camera buying advice
No one, not even me who uses his cameras all day long, needs anything better than a Nikon D3100 $640 with zoom lens.
The LEICA M9-P ($7,995) with 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH ($3,700)is a rangefinder camera that is my choice for nature and landscape shots.
ISO and megapixels have nothing more to do with a camera's quality than the number of spot-welds used to assemble your car.
6 Megapixels is all anyone needs for anything, and every camera here has two or three times that today.
The LEICA M9-P is half the weight of a DSLR and it's image quality is twice as high due to its overwhelmingly superior lenses.
No compact camera, at any price, is fast enough for photos of people, pets, news and sports.
[funny as I've used them for exactly those things including photographing a sporting event]
Ken Rockwell talking general rubbish
Digital is fun, but photographers shoot film, also known as the real raw format. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm)
When doing film vs. digital comparisons, I prefer to compare like to like, and compare larger formats of film, as shot by most pros, to the DSLRs used by most pros. 35mm film is an amateur format, so I've never bothered to compare.
[it's a obscure fact that no professional photographer has ever, ever used 35mm film, so obscure that not even the professionals shooting on 35mm film knew this]
-
And don’t get me started with Ken’s take on color management and sRGB. As silly as the stuff you posted about photography.
-
I just love how sometimes he contradicts him self. I've read him from now and then and every time there is something he says that opposes to past comments he made. You forgot the comment where he always shoots jpg's and needs no raw because he always get it right from the camera.
-
And don’t get me started with Ken’s take on color management and sRGB. As silly as the stuff you posted about photography.
It's hard to find anything that isn't silly on that site.
-
When I hear mention of KR, I think of that classic New Yorker cartoon caption: "On the Web nobody knows you're a dog!" ;)
-
I never take anything that Ken Rockwell says as being serious. On his "About" page, he even states "I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.".
I think that he enjoys getting all of us "techies" fired up. Don't believe everything you read!
-
When I hear mention of KR, I think of that classic New Yorker cartoon caption: "On the Web nobody knows you're a dog!" ;)
We all know you're a dog Eric.
Probably Michael is a dog too - he disallowed cat photographs on LuLa.
I myself am proud to be a dog. I don't care who knows it.
Woof, woof, wag, wag ....
:P
-
Doesn't everyone?
I shall break my own rule to write: +1
Techies - aka the death of creative photography.
Rob C
-
I shall break my own rule to write: +1
Techies - aka the death of creative photography.
Rob C
Anti-Techies: the death to the future of photography. Now, my intention of that statement is to point out that the future of photography is dependent on both creativity and technology. Without either, it will die. Both are needed. In fact, it is possible to be both a techie and be creative at the same time. Some of us are technically creative.
-
Anti-Techies: the death to the future of photography. Now, my intention of that statement is to point out that the future of photography is dependent on both creativity and technology. Without either, it will die. Both are needed. In fact, it is possible to be both a techie and be creative at the same time. Some of us are technically creative.
Absolutely. I don't remember reading much criticism of Ansel Adams' creativity and he was a serious analogue techie.
-
Ansel Adams creative? Where'd that come from...
-
Ansel Adams creative? Where'd that come from...
It came with the sainthood, Jennifer. You know, 20-20 hindsight. ARAT is the definition of creativity in some quarters; it also involves a ritual with old tripod holes, but I never quite grasped the significance of the latter. I believe that using a little artificial heating is frowned upon, too. Rules, rules; thirds, triplets and octaves even! Makes me think of Fats Domino.
Regading the death of techies or photography or whatever: reading the techie posts here, I seldom appear to see them linked with any great photography.
Now, perhaps for the record, some personal definitions might come in useful and avoid another zillion indignant posts.
With techie, I refer to pixel-wankers; you know, fairies on the head of a pin, etc. at 100% (of something or another). I do not mean active, professional people in the job who know how to use complicated equipment in their daily work. There has never been a problem with understanding one's gear; there has always been a problem with thinking that said gear has to be very complicated, be the very latest flavour of the month, be exchanged as rapidly as it's bought (just like yachts) and bear a famous name. Never realised it before: many yachties suffer the same angst as 'photographers': they can't enjoy what they are fortunate enough to have for wishing they had something bigger, newer and more expensive. Just the way I feel about cars, come to think about it... fortunately, I'm poor enough to have avoided making a fool of myself over them. Cars, I mean; the rest is not up for discussion.
Rob C
-
Woof!
-
Woof!
Now we are talking (or is it barking?)!
The thread has finally reached the level of seriousness worthy of Ken Rockwell ;)
-
The thread has finally reached the level of seriousness worthy of Ken Rockwell ;)
+1
-
Now we are talking (or is it barking?)!
The thread has finally reached the level of seriousness worthy of Ken Rockwell ;)
+1! Meow!
-
You know what ?
You're awesome ... gave me a good laugh ...
(walks away wagging his tail)
-
You know what ?
You're awesome ... gave me a good laugh ...
(walks away wagging his tail)
Speaking of tails, it reminds me of the parable of the little fox who got his tail chopped off: he wanted all the other little foxes to get theirs chopped off too.
Rob C
P.S. Also reminds that all this publicity would probably have cost Ken more than he'd want to afford!
-
Ken is probably at the A&E right now with sore ribs. It might be from the "kicking" he has had from this post or they are sore from laughing at all of the detractors. ;)
-
I can assure you that he is in no way the kind of photographer I would look up to. I think KW could have easily come up with a better example.
Ken Wockwell?
Stefan
-
Ken Wockwell?
Stefan
What Wock ?
Jabberwocky
by Lewis Carroll
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
:P
-
I think Ken makes more sense than Lewis Carroll. :) ;D
-
I think Ken makes more sense than Lewis Carroll. :) ;D
Do a background check. You may be surprised how much of Charles Lutwidge Dogson's day job appears in Lewis Carroll's books.
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_03_10.html for starters.
Ciao, Walter
-
Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
-
Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
This very virtual place is called "The Coffee Corner" for a reason, I believe.
"A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."
===
He would joke with hyenas, returning their stare
With an impudent wag of the head:
And he once went a walk, paw-in-paw, with a bear,
“Just to keep up its spirits,” he said.
=== Lewis Carroll "The Hunting of The Snark"
So, come back to the table, please!
Ciao, Walter
-
... The thread has finally reached the level of seriousness worthy of Ken Rockwell ;)
+1
-
Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
Man ... what a broken record you've become! Enough already ...
If the threads bore you ... why do you read them?
-
Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
I mean, it's basically the biggest gearhead site out there. There's more discussion of actual photography at DPreview than his site. But, and here's the key part, he pulls the classic trick of preemptively accusing everyone else of being guilty of his own worst crimes. Every photo on his site is like, "hey, look how saturated and sharp this fire hydrant is on my million dollar camera!", and then he turns around and says stuff about how all anyone needs is a Canon Powershot and the rest of the photo world is obsessed with gear and they should be taking art classes and learning technique and color theory, etc. Oh, and by the way, look how friggin' saturated (and sharp!) this stop sign is with his new M9 and Leica Ultracrazylux f 0.3 $28,000 lens is! And while he insists no one should be buying such frivolities, he's kind enough to provide (paid) B&H, Adorama and Amazon links to them. So basically, he does one thing, tells a story about what he's doing that's completely contrary to that, and makes buck off of it every step of the way.
What I'm saying is, he really belongs in politics.
-
What I'm saying is, he really belongs in politics.
Ken for president! ;)
-
Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was indeed a photographer, and quite a good one. Though perhaps you were concerned about all this talk of Ken Rockwell. I think the jury is still out on whether he is a photographer. ;)
Eric
-
Man ... what a broken record you've become! Enough already ...
If the threads bore you ... why do you read them?
I am not bored just prefer photographic subjects, Lewis Carrol wasn't into photography? Jeremy you are well named. :) ;D
-
+1
Slobodan, very subtle. Surreal, even...
;-)
Rob C
-
If it is not too late to make a New Year's resolution, I promise to never mention his name again on any and all forums I participate in, either now or in the future! Although I am happy that he has decreed that the 28-300 (which I have) will be the best lens for my expected D800! ;D
-
If it is not too late to make a New Year's resolution, I promise to never mention his name again on any and all forums I participate in, either now or in the future! Although I am happy that he has decreed that the 28-300 (which I have) will be the best lens for my expected D800! ;D
This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
:P
Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.
-
This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
:P
Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.
You forgot the lens hood! :)
-
You forgot the lens hood! :)
Right.
I forgot.
The lens hood.
The lens hood is a carbon nanotube coated foldable carbon fibre cloth with carbon fibre rods which you can disassemble in astonishing 42 microseconds.
Actually you can also use it as a tent if you have the accessory piece of roof cloth.
Cheers
~Chris
-
This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
:P
Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.
No, Christoph! That's the wrong extender! I don't know where you got the idea that a stodgy old 1.4 would do the job in the 21st century.
What you need is the state-of-the-art +/-5.6x Spamtastic extender (with both a red ring and a gold ring around it). Personally autographed by K*n R*ckw*ll for only $743,591 additional. 8)
-
Right.
I forgot.
The lens hood.
The lens hood is a carbon nanotube coated foldable carbon fibre cloth with carbon fibre rods which you can disassemble in astonishing 42 microseconds.
Actually you can also use it as a tent if you have the accessory piece of roof cloth.
Cheers
~Chris
you should buy the latest model, I have the MKII version that came with the Carbon Fiber Accessory Cone to be used for safe Lunar Orbit re-entry.
-
Disclaimer:
My tests are based on the (obviously now outdated) MK I version and first extender which was available at that time. Seems I'm always lagging behind a bit.
What I could find out by searching secret sources in the net in the meantime is, that the MK III will get announced soonish and be shown at the upcoming photokina. It contains a new wobbly lens which is a Bionics design after the eye of the Jabberwock as well as a flexible tube material out of the skin of the beast. The extender will be replaced by a cograil stretcher with a wheel to physically extend the whole lens, so you won't need an additional extender anymore if you have the cograil to stretch the whole MK III design. The cograil is not meant to be used with the MK II or MK I version, because of their non-stretchable material. The special signed editions are not yet announced. What is also not yet clear is, if there will also be a compressor to extend further into the wide angle range or even negative focal lengths by everting the lens ...
-
Disclaimer:
My tests are based on the (obviously now outdated) MK I version and first extender which was available at that time. Seems I'm always lagging behind a bit.
What is also not yet clear is, if there will also be a compressor to extend further into the wide angle range or even negative focal lengths by everting the lens ...
Man, you're lagging more than you thought: you forgot to mention the shark's-penis-skin carrying bag for the limited extender. It's a dual-purpose model and saves you buying an underwater housing. It obviates the need for a polarizer.
Rob C
-
Rob - now I believe you're kidding!!!
Sharks are fish and not whales and thus don't have a penis.
:P
EDIT: Did you mean that thing on their rear side which is standing up all the time ? Its called fin, not penis ....
-
Rob - now I believe you're kidding!!!
Sharks are fish and not whales and thus don't have a penis.
:P
EDIT: Did you mean that thing on their rear side which is standing up all the time ? Its called fin, not penis ....
maybe he was referring to a Whale Shark.
-
... that thing on their rear side which is standing up all the time?...
All the time!? If it is longer than four hours, they better call a doctor ;)
-
Rob - now I believe you're kidding!!!
Sharks are fish and not whales and thus don't have a penis.
:P
EDIT: Did you mean that thing on their rear side which is standing up all the time ? Its called fin, not penis ....
Chris, it's worse than I'd feared: you actually believe that old fishwives' fib!
I have good friends in the nautical industry and they confirm what I already had from a mermaid (and who'd know better?); it was all personally confirmed by personal research last year when I presented the hard work for my Botticelli Show:
"The Birth of Venus
Always a pale child, Sandro Botticelli would spend hours of the day in solitary walks by the fabled shore, chatting quietly with the mermaids who, taking pity upon the poor kid, would allow themselves to be seen. Nonetheless, sirens to a fish, they would temper their discourse with anecdotes about heroes and other mythical creatures until poor little Sandro, head throbbing, could take no more, and would scurry back to the relative silence of his broken home.
This continued until his fourth birthday when, heavy with a cold, he was confined to quarters. Bored, he wandered around the house until he came upon the wooden ladder to the flat roof, an area forbidden him because of the difficulties a small child might face attempting to challenge the perils of such a thing.
Anyway, since nobody was around and his mother was entertaining some soldiers in the garden, he took the opportunity of going where he had never gone before: up and ever higher, at least to the open trapdoor to the roof. (Now, you must understand that for a four-year-old, wooden ladders do indeed represent a formidable obstacle.) With great care, he climbed until his head just reached the level of the floor outside.
At that point he almost fell right back down. There, on a bed of swan feathers, her feet framing his ears, lay Aunt Leda, snoring and sunbathing naked as a frog, in perfect simulation of the Vitruvian Man in his more athletic mode. At four, such things are inclined to leave an indelible mark upon one’s mind.
And so it was with Botticelli. From then onwards, he saw everything in terms of shells, a condition that stayed with him until the end and gave rise to his most renowned oeuvre: the Birth of Venus. The mermaids saw little of him after that.
© Rob Campbell, 2011"
QED.
-
Awesome, just awesome.
I start loving this thread.
I can't remember I had that much fun here the last weeks ....
-
It beats anything on KR's site for pure entertainment! Bravo, people!
Eric
-
When you people make recommendations for me to buy really cool equipment that you personally have tested very thoroughly, make sure the button is handy which will link me directly to the vendor. That way, you can collect the fabulous royalties you deserve for hawking the product in the first place. After all, I suspect you are supporting the growth of your growing families by getting me to support you by buying the aforementioned really cool equipment that you have decided is the greatest in the history of all photography.
-
I heard a rumor from myself (actually an unidentified voice in my head) just now that one of the large camera manufacturers is developing lens technology based on the X-Ray glasses that we used to read about on the back page of Superman comic books. The rumored specs are unbelievable. You can actually read about the technology here http://tomheroes.com/images/COMICAD%20xray%20glasses.JPG
-
X-Ray lens technology was investigated way back during WW2 and then abandoned: it didn't work well at all because the moment the target was found, it became invisible because the lens allowed the operator to see right through it - the target, that is, not the lens, though in a sense, you could do that as well, if you were the operator.
That's why Kilroy was brought into play: his alternative methods of snooping became both highly efficient and, ultimately, legendary.
Rob C
-
X-Ray lens technology was investigated way back during WW2 and then abandoned: it didn't work well at all because the moment the target was found, it became invisible because the lens allowed the operator to see right through it- the target, that is, not the lens, though in a sense, you could do that as well, if you were the operator.
That's why Kilroy was brought into play: his alternative methods of snooping became both highly efficient and, ultimately, legendary.
Rob C
So, this explains why I am never able to make that perfect capture...it is always disappearing!
-
So, this explains why I am never able to make that perfect capture...it is always disappearing!
Happy to have been of service, señor. Now you know to leave sharks' penes alone.
Sadly, this song will never sound the same to me again...
http://youtu.be/EzahOCCt78o
Rob C